BT  303  .S55  1923 
Simkhovitch,  Vladimir 
Grigorievi tch ,  1874- 
Toward  the  understanding  of 


T  .«rv  a  < 


Toward  the  Understanding 
of  Jesus 


e 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK  •  BOSTON  •  CHICAGO  •  DALITS 
ATLANTA  •  SAN  FRANCISCO 


MACMILLAN  Sc  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON  •  BOMBAY  •  CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 


THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  Ltd„ 
TORONTO 


Toward  the  Understanding 

of  Jesus 


/  . 
/ 


-  /  \ 


..^23 


BY 

Vladimir  G.  Simkhovitch 


j0eto  gorfe 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

1923 


All  rights  reserved 


FSINTED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OP  AMERICA 


Copyright, 

By  the  MACMILLAN  COMPANY, 

Reprinted  July, 


Press  of 

J.  J.  Little  &  Ives  Company 
New  York,  U.  S.  A, 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

«oo*o*«oeoooo 

Toward  the  Understanding  of  Jesus  o  o  c  c  i 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/towardunderstandOOsimk_0 


PREFACE 


The  present  study  was  first  published  with  two 
other  historical  essays  in  1921  under  the  title,  “Toward 
the  Understanding  of  Jesus  and  Other  Historical 
Studies.” 

The  background  of  the  teachings  of  Christ  are 
naturally  of  greater  interest  to  the  reading  public  than 
researches  on  the  fall  of  Rome  or  the  agrarian  condi¬ 
tions  of  medieval  Europe.  It  is  therefore  deemed  ad¬ 
visable  by  the  publishers  to  issue  “Toward  the  Under¬ 
standing  of  Jesus”  separately  and  thus  meet  the  de¬ 
mand  of  a  wider  public. 

In  the  preface  of  the  original  edition  I  tried  to  make 
it  quite  clear  that  this  study  is  not  a  contribution  to 
so-called  higher  criticism  but  rather  to  historical 
understanding.  To  explain  the  purpose  of  this  little 
book  therefore  I  venture  to  quote  from  the  preface  of 
the  original  edition — “The  first  study  deals  with  the 
historical  problem  presented  by  the  teachings  of  Jesus. 
The  problem  is — why  such  unprecedented  teachings 
at  that  particular  time?  This  study,  therefore,  deals, 
if  you  please,  with  the  ‘fullness  of  time.’  To  the  scien¬ 
tific  historian  everything  that  has  happened  happened 
in  the  ‘fullness  of  time’  and  to  understand  intimately 
and  realistically  that  ‘fullness’  is  the  task  of  history. 
In  this  particular  study,  therefore,  we  are  endeavoring 


VI 


PREFACE 


to  understand  the  particular  circumstances  and  condi¬ 
tions  that  make  so  great  an  historical  event  as  the 
insight  of  Jesus  historically  intelligible  to  us. 

“In  dealing  with  the  gospel  texts  I  have  not  at¬ 
tempted  to  utilize  critical  literature.  Text-criticism 
to  my  way  of  thinking  already  presupposes  a  clear-cut 
understanding  of  the  controlling  factors  in  the  his¬ 
torical  situation.” 

To  this  former  preface  I  have  nothing  to  add  except 
thanks  to  my  readers  for  a  far  greater  measure  of 
appreciation  and  interest  In  my  work  than  I  had  ven¬ 
tured  to  expect. 

Vladimir  G.  Simkhovitch. 

Columbia  University, 

April,  1923. 


Toward  the  Understanding 
of  Jesus 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING 

OF  JESUS 


CHAPTER  I 

The  teachings  of  Christ  are  an  historical  event. 
Let  us  try  to  understand  them  historically.  Without 
an  historical  understanding  we  have  before  us  not 
teachings  but  texts.  There  is  hardly  a  text  in  the  four 
gospels  that  is  not  apparently  conflicting  with  other 
texts.  Yet  an  insight  is  won  when  the  teachings  of 
Jesus  are  viewed  and  understood  historically. 

The  test  of  true  understanding  is  to  see  in  seeming 
contradictions  but  differing  aspects  of  the  same  funda¬ 
mental  forces,  to  perceive  in  the  endless  expressions  of 
life  but  one  flow  of  life  and  to  trace  that  flow  to  its 
sources.  The  test  of  true  understanding  is  an  under¬ 
standing  free  from  contradictions.  So  long  as  we  find 
contradictions  it  is  certain  that  what  we  hold  in  our 
hands  are  fragments;  and  though  we  may  try  to  ar¬ 
range  them  logically,  the  complete  sphere  of  Jesus’ 
own  life  and  the  life  he  preached  we  do  not  understand. 

The  gospels  themselves  contain  practically  nothing 
that  throws  light  on  Jesus’  life  as  a  whole.  Little  is 

I 


2  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

to  be  found  about  his  life  and  development  before  his 
ministry.  Yet  it  is  clear  that  when  he  entered  upon 
his  ministry  he  felt  called  to  do  so,  and  it  is  clear  that 
such  a  mission  develops  slowly.  What  do  we  know  of 
the  long  years  while  Jesus  was  thinking  and  feeling 
and  praying,  the  years  while  the  life  was  ripening 
which  he  afterwards  preached  and  finally  sacrificed? 
Under  what  circumstances  he  was  developing,  what 
he  was  doing,  what  influences  impressed  themselves 
upon  his  life  and  thought  before  he  was  thirty — what 
do  we  know  about  it?  Nothing!  The  episode  from 
Jesus’  childhood,  when  he  remained  in  the  temple 
listening  and  asking  questions  of  the  learned  men 
there,  only  emphasizes  our  lack  of  knowledge.  For  if 
Jesus  in  his  childhood  was  so  eager  and  mentally  so 
keen,  what  was  his  mind  doing  during  the  eighteen  or 
twenty  years  which  followed  that  episode  ?  Luke  tells 
us  “And  Jesus  increased  in  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in 
favor  with  God  and  man.”  ^  That  is  all  we  know 
about  the  growth  and  development  of  Jesus’  life  and 
mind.  Was  his  inner  life  dormant  or  non-existent  all 
these  years?  Did  he  not  grow  at  all?  Had  his  ideas 
no  sources  whatsoever,  no  development  of  any  kind; 
were  they  utterly  uncorrelated  with  the  lives  of  his  fel¬ 
low  men?  What  was  Jesus,  a  phantom  abstractly  ex¬ 
isting  in  a  vacuum,  or  a  historical  personality  really 
living  and  suffering  in  a  given  time  and  place  ? 

There  can  be  but  one  relevant  answer  to  the  ques¬ 
tion:  Jesus  was  a  historical  personality.  We  all  live 
and  die  and  most  of  us  are  forgotten.  Personalities 

‘Luke  2:  52. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  3 

who  are  remembered,  whom  written  records  of  human 
existence  cannot  overlook  and  our  memory  cannot  for¬ 
get,  are  personalities  whose  individual  lives  greatly  af¬ 
fected  many  lives.  A  personality  in  other  words  ac¬ 
quires  historical  importance  when  it  deals  with  the 
many,  when  its  ideas,  actions,  words  are  understood 
by  the  many,  affect  the  many.  If  a  multitude  gathers 
around  one,  it  means  that  what  the  one  is  teaching  is  of 
interest  to  so  many  individuals  that  they  form  a  multi¬ 
tude  around  him. 

The  more  limited  is  our  knowledge  of  the  one,  the 
more  important  is  the  light  that  may  be  shed  by  the 
many.  The  many  seldom  present  difficult  problems, 
for  it  is  never  very  difficult  to  find  out  what  in  a  given 
situation  they  had  in  common.  What  were  their  com¬ 
mon  conditions  of  existence,  what  were  their  common 
hopes,  what  were  their  fears,  interests,  purposes? 
Once  we  find  that  out,  the  reactions  of  the  many  are 
not  difficult  to  understand.  The  particular  historical 
conditions  under  which  Jesus  developed,  lived,  min¬ 
istered  and  died  are  bound  to  help  us  understand  his 
life  and  hence  his  teachings  more  intimately.  How 
the  Greeks  or  the  Romans,  the  Gauls,  the  Goths  or 
the  Slavs  at  various  times  conceived  and  pictured  to 
themselves  Jesus  and  his  teachings  is  an  interesting 
problem  in  itself.  It  is  the  history  of  Christianity,  it 
is  the  story  of  Jesus  in  the  course  of  human  history. 
The  history  of  these  interpretations  of  Jesus  is  a  his¬ 
tory  of  assimilations,  in  a  sense  a  history  of  mankind. 
But  it  is  not  the  history  of  mankind  that  interests  us 
here.  These  interpretations  can  only  confuse  us.  Nor 


4  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

are  we  interested  in  a  composite  picture  of  Jesus  in 
history  throughout  the  ages  of  faith.  What  we  are 
searching  for  is  that  definite,  concrete,  historical  Jesus 
who  can  give  coherence  to  his  teachings.  Our  quest 
is  the  historical  truth.  Let  us  therefore  go  to  the  docu¬ 
ments;  but  let  us  be  clear  in  our  mind  as  to  their 
value. 

For  historical  truth  is  not  a  bundle  of  documents. 
Documents  are  the  raw  material,  but  not  the  struc¬ 
ture.  Historical  truth  is  such  a  constructive  insight 
into  a  given  situation  as  to  carry  with  it  conviction  of 
real  life.  Social  life  is  then  moving  within  its  condi¬ 
tions  of  existence ;  and  personalities,  in  their  words  and 
deeds,  are  correlated  with  their  fellow  men  and  appear 
in  their  historical,  that  is,  their  representative  capacity. 


CHAPTER  II 


In  the  year  seventy  after  Christ  the  temple  of 
Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  Jerusalem  was  sacked,  and 
the  population  either  slain,  crucified  or  sold  into 
slavery.  It  is  estimated  that  over  a  million  and  two 
hundred  thousand  perished.  Josephus  tells  us  about 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  that  “the  multitude  of 
those  that  therein  perished  exceeded  all  the  destruc¬ 
tions  that  either  men  or  God  ever  brought  upon  the 
world.”  ^ 

The  conventional  history  usually  begins  this  war  on 
August  sixth  of  the  year  66,  when  the  Romans  and 
other  Gentiles  were  massacred  by  the  Jews  of  Jeru¬ 
salem.  This  date  is  so  artificial  that  Mommsen  for 
instance  suggests  A.  D.  44  as  the  year  from  which  the 
Jewish-Roman  war  might  better  be  dated. 

It  has  been  customary  to  put  the  outbreak  of  the  war  in  the 
year  66;  with  equal  and  perhaps  better  warrant  we  might  name 
for  it  the  year  44.  Since  the  death  of  Agrippa,  warfare  in  Judea 
had  never  ceased,  and  alongside  of  the  local  feuds,  which  Jews 
fought  with  Jews,  there  went  on  constantly  the  war  of  Roman 
troops  against  the  seceders  in  the  mountains,  the  Zealots,  as  the 
Jews  named  them,  or,  according  to  Roman  designation,  the 
Robbers.2 

^Josephus:  Jewish  Wars,  VI,  9,  4. 

^Mommsen;  The  Provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire,  v.  2,  p.  221-222. 
(New  York,  1887.) 


5 


6  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 


But  to  date  the  beginning  of  the  revolt  against  Rome 
with  the  death  of  Agrippa  in  the  year  44  is  also  quite 
arbitrary.  For  the  revolt  had  been  brewing  and  re¬ 
peatedly  breaking  out  here  and  there  long  before  that. 
If  we  should  follow  the  opinion  of  a  contemporary 
historian,  Josephus,  we  should  have  to  date  the  be¬ 
ginnings  back  to  the  revolt  of  Judas,  the  Galilean,  or 
Judas,  the  Gaulonite,  to  whose  revolutionary  activities 
and  doctrines  Josephus  attributes  all  the  ensuing  mis¬ 
fortunes  of  the  Jewish  nation,  which  culminated  in  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  its  temple.  The  occasion 
of  that  uprising  was  the  census  of  Quirinius  for  tax¬ 
ation  purposes  in  the  year  6  A.  D.  Josephus  tells  us 
that  one  Judas,  the  Gaulonite,  with  a  Pharisee  named 
Saddouk,  urged  the  Jews  to  revolt,  both  preaching 
that  “this  taxation  was  no  better  than  an  introduction 
of  slavery,  and  exhorting  the  nation  to  assert  its 
liberty.”  Josephus  proceeds  to  inform  us  about  these 
men  and  their  doctrine : 

All  sorts  of  misfortunes  sprung  from  these  men,  and  the  nation 
was  infected  with  this  doctrine  to  an  incredible  degree ;  one  violent 
war  came  upon  us  after  another  ....  the  sedition  at  last  so  in¬ 
creased  that  the  very  temple  of  God  was  burnt  down  by  their 
enemies’  fire.^ 

Toward  the  end  of  the  same  chapter  he  gives  us  some 
information  about  the  so-called  philosophy  of  Judas, 
the  Gaulonite  or  the  Galilean,  as  well  as  of  his  follow¬ 
ers. 

These  men  agree  in  all  other  things  with  the  Pharisaic  notions; 
but  they  have  an  inviolable  attachment  to  liberty,  and  say  that 

‘Josephus:  Antiquities,  XVIII,  i,  1. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  ^ 


God  is  to  be  their  only  Lord  and  Master.  They  also  do  not  mind 
dying  any  death,  nor  indeed  do  they  heed  the  deaths  of  their 
relations  and  friends,  nor  could  the  fear  of  death  make  them 
call  any  man  their  master.  And  since  this  immutable  resolution 
of  theirs  is  well  known  to  a  great  many,  I  shall  speak  no  further 
about  that  matter;  nor  am  I  afraid  that  anything  I  have  said  of 
them  should  be  disbelieved,  rather  do  I  fear  that  what  I  have 
said  does  not  adequately  express  the  determination  that  they 
show  when  they  undergo  pain.^ 

As  a  matter  of  fact  the  Jewish  struggle  for  inde¬ 
pendence  and  the  Zealot  movement  did  not  begin  even 
with  Judas  the  Gaulonite.  Judas  himself  only  con¬ 
tinued  the  work  of  his  father,  Ezechias  of  Galilee,^ 
who  with  his  very  large  following  was  killed  by  young 
Herod  when  the  latter  was  only  the  captain,  sTpax'nyo^, 
of  Galilee  under  Hyrcanus,  the  ethnarch  of  Judea. 
That  was  in  the  year  46  B.  C.  Even  then  the  San¬ 
hedrin  of  Jerusalem  must  have  had  strong  sympathies 
with  Ezechias,  for  Herod  was  accused  before  that  body 
for  killing  Ezechias  and  his  followers,  and  he  would 
have  fared  badly  had  not  Sextus  Caesar,  the  Roman 
governor  of  Syria,  requested  from  Hyrcanus  Herod’s 
acquittal.^ 

Nor  does  the  rebellion  of  the  Jews  begin  with 
Ezechias.  The  rebellion  of  the  Jews  against  Rome 
rather  begins  with  the  power  of  Rome  over  the  Jews; 
and  in  the  same  degree  as  the  Roman  power  over  the 
Jews  increased,  did  the  political  reaction  against  that 
power,  the  revolution  against  Rome,  increase  and 

^Josephus:  Antiquities,  XVIII,  i,  6. 

^  Schiirer:  Geschichte  des  Jiidischen  Volkes  im  Zeitalter  Jesu  Christi, 
V.  I,  p.  420.  (4th  ed.,  Leipzig,  1901). 

®  Josephus:  Antiq.,  XIV,  9,  3-5.  Jewish  Wars,  I,  10,  6-9. 


8 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 


Spread.  The  Jewish  revolutionists  against  Rome  were 
called  by  the  Romans  bandits  or  robbers.  Later  they 
were  called  scitariij  “men  with  knives.”  The  polite 
Josephus  followed  the  Romans  in  calling  them  robbers ; 
but  whenever  he  tells  us  about  the  constant  war¬ 
fare,  about  either  the  Romans’  or  Herod’s  exploits 
against  the  robbers,  it  becomes  clear  that  they  are 
religious  patriots  who  are  fighting  and  dying  for 
their  country.  So,  for  instance,  Josephus  describes  one 
of  Herod’s  expeditions  against  some  Galilean  robbers: 

Now  these  men  slew  the  robbers  and  their  families  .  .  .  and  as 
Herod  was  desirous  of  saving  some  of  them,  he  issued  a  proclama¬ 
tion  to  them  .  .  .  but  not  one  of  them  came  willingly  to  him,  and 
those  that  were  compelled  to  come  preferred  death  to  captivity. 

.  .  .  And  here  a  certain  old  man,  the  father  of  seven  children  .  .  . 
slew  his  children  one  after  another.  .  .  .  Herod  was  near  enough 
to  see  this  sight  and  compassion  moved  him,  and  he  stretched  out  his 
right  hand  to  the  old  man  and  besought  him  to  spare  his  children; 
yet  did  he  not  relent  at  all  upon  what  he  said,  hut  reproached 
Herod  on  the  lowliness  of  his  descent,  and  slew  his  wife  as  well  as 
his  children;  and  when  he  had  thrown  their  dead  bodies  down  the 
precipice,  he  at  last  threw  himself  down  after  them.^ 

It  is  obvious  here  that  we  are  dealing  not  with  mer¬ 
cenary  bandits,  but  with  political  and  religious  devotees 
who  prefer  death  to  submission.  The  Zealot  move¬ 
ment,  judging  from  Josephus’s  narrative,  is  of  much 
older  date  than  the  revolt  of  Judas  the  Gaulonite,  but 
that  particular  Galilean’s  uprising  must  have  especially 
impressed  itself  upon  the  memory  of  men,  for  it  is 
mentioned  by  way  of  illustration  or  characterization 
even  in  the  Acts. 

After  this  man  rose  up  Judas  of  Galilee  in  the  days  of  the  taxing 
the  enrolment]  and  drew  away  much  people  after  him:  he 

^Josephus:  Jewish  Wars,  I,  i6,  4. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  9 


also  perished;  and  all,  even  as  many  as  obeyed  him,  were  dis¬ 
persed.^ 

Still  more  Important  the  outbreak  becomes  when 
we  consider  what  happened  at  the  same  time.  For 
it^<was  this  very  Census  of  Quirinius  and  this  very  en¬ 
rolment  which,  according  to  Luke,  brought  Joseph 
and  Mary  from  Nazareth  to  Bethlehem  where  Mary 
gave  birth  to  Jesus. ^  The  chronology  and  details  of 
Luke’s  narrative  present  many  puzzles,  important  no 
doubt  to  the  historian  of  dates  and  places,  but  not  rele¬ 
vant  in  a  history  of  ideas.  The  slight  chronological 
discrepancies  here  we  may  overlook.  For  after  all 
so  far  as  influence  and  ideas  are  concerned,  it  does 
not  matter  whether  the  uprisings  of  Judas  took  place 
in  the  year  i  or  in  the  year  7  after  the  birth  of  Christ. 
Certain  it  is  that  the  great  events  under  the  shadow 
of  which  Jesus  spent  his  childhood  were  memories  of 
Herod’s  bloody  rule,  the  annexation  of  Judea  to  the 
Roman  province  of  Syria,  and  the  revolt  against  Rome 
of  Judas  of  Galilee. 

The  importance  of  Judas’s  uprising  is  attested  to 
us  by  Josephus.  The  ideas  for  which  Judas  stood  did 
not  die  with  him,  but  were  spreading  and  increasing  till 
all  of  Judea  and  Galilee  were  in  a  veritable  conflagra¬ 
tion.  Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  Jesus  paid  no 
attention  to  what  was  going  on  around  him?  Is  it 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  souls  of  his  fellow 
men,  their  ideas  and  ideals  could  be  a  matter  of  in¬ 
difference  to  him? 

You  must  remember  that  if  there  was  a  difference 

‘Acts  5:37. 

Luke  2: 1-6. 


lO  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 


between  the  Pharisees  and  the  Zealots  it  was  only  in 
the  method  and  the  degree  of  their  antagonism  to 
Rome.  The  immediate  followers  of  Judas  grasped 
the  sword  as  their  answer  to  Roman  taxation.  But 
all  the  Jews  in  Jerusalem  and  throughout  Judea  re¬ 
sented  the  idea  of  paying  tribute.  Josephus  tells  us 
that  they  took  the  report  of  taxation  “heinously,” 
and  that  it  took  a  great  deal  of  persuasion  on  the  part 
of  the  high  priest  Joazar  to  make  them  submit  to  the 
taxation.^  It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  difference  in 
attitude  between  the  Zealots  and  the  Pharisees  was 
that  the  former  resisted  with  the  drawn  sword,  while 
the  submission  of  the  latter  was  but  passive  resistance, 
with  a  heart  full  of  resentment  but  with  an  arm  too 
feeble  or  a  mind  too  cautious  to  grasp  the  sword. 
Hence  the  Pharisaic  question,  “Is  it  lawful  to  give 
tribute  unto  Caesar,  or  not?”  ^  The  inquirer  knew 
as  well  as  Jesus  how  unpopular  the  answer  Yes  would 
be  with  a  Jewish  audience.  Jesus  answered,  however, 
in  the  affirmative,  pointing  out  that  they  have  lost  their 
independence,  that  on  their  tribute  coin  is  the  image 
of  Caesar.  Hence  there  is  nothing  left  but  to  “render 
therefore  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar’s.”  ^ 

In  the  year  6  Judea  was  annexed  to  Syria;  in  the 
year  70  Jerusalem  and  its  temple  were  destroyed.  Be¬ 
tween  these  two  dates  Jesus  preached  and  was  crucified 
on  Golgotha.  During  all  that  time  the  life  of  the  lit¬ 
tle  nation  was  a  terrific  drama;  its  patriotic  emotions 
were  aroused  to  the  highest  pitch  and  then  still  more 

^Josephus:  Antiquities,  XVIII,  i,  i. 

*  Matthew  22:17. 

^Ibid. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  II 


inflamed  by  the  identification  of  national  politics  with 
a  national  religion.  Is  it  reasonable  to  assume  that 
what  was  going  on  before  Jesus’  eyes  was  a  closed 
book,  that  the  agonizing  problems  of  his  people  were 
a  matter  of  indifference  to  him,  that  he  had  given  them 
no  consideration,  that  he  was  not  taking  a  definite  at¬ 
titude  towards  the  great  and  all-absorbing  problem 
of  the  very  people  whom  he  taught? 

In  this  setting,  the  Jewish  nationalist  could  not  sepa¬ 
rate  religion  from  patriotism.  Roman  taxation,  for 
instance,  is  certainly  a  purely  political  question,  but 
Judas  made  a  religious  issue  of  it;  and  the  Pharisaic 
interrogator  of  Jesus  asked  whether  it  was  “lawful,” 
that  is,  religiously  permissible.  Jesus  therefore  could 
not  meditate  about  the  religious  problems  of  the  peo¬ 
ple  to  whom  he  ministered  without  giving  considera¬ 
tion  to  their  engrossing  political  problem.  That  he 
had  profoundly  considered  the  problems  of  his  day 
and  wondered  what  the  future  contained  for  his  people 
is  shown  by  his  reproach  to  the  Pharisees : 

The  Pharisees  also  with  the  Sadducees  came,  and  tempting  de¬ 
sired  him  that  he  would  shew  them  a  sign  from  heaven.  But  he 
answered  and  said  unto  them,  When  it  is  evening,  ye  say.  It  will 
be  fair  weather:  for  the  sky  is  red.  And  in  the  morning.  It  will 
be  foul  weather  to-day:  for  the  sky  is  red  and  lowering.  O,  ye 
hypocrites,  ye  can  discern  the  face  of  the  sky;  but  can  ye  not  dis¬ 
cern  the  signs  of  the  times  ?  ^ 

‘Matthew  16:1-3. 


CHAPTER  III 


Called  upon  to  examine  the  origin  and  causes  of 
the  spreading  resentment,  of  the  fermenting  revolu¬ 
tion  against  Rome’s  rule,  one  curious  circumstance  is 
bound  to  attract  our  attention.  This  circumstance  is 
that  the  Jews  themselves  petitioned  Rome  for  Judea’s 
annexation  to  the  Roman  province  of  Syria.  Rome,  on 
the  other  hand,  did  not  grant  the  petition  immediately. 
Only  after  years  of  Archelaus’s  misrule  in  Jerusalem 
was  he  finally  deposed  and  Judea  annexed  in  6  A.  D. 
Of  course  there  were  good  reasons  for  the  Jewish 
petition;  the  immediate  concrete  situation  must  have 
suggested  precisely  such  action  both  on  the  part  of 
Judea  and  on  the  part  of  Rome.  But  behind  the  im¬ 
mediate  situation  a  vista  is  opened  on  the  character  and 
quality  of  Jewish  political  independence. 

The  events  themselves  are  simple  enough;  judged 
by  themselves  they  are  insignificant;  but  valued  psycho¬ 
logically,  viewed  as  indications,  what  a  light  they  throw 
.upon  Jewish  nationalism  and  anationalism,  upon  Jew¬ 
ish  political  life  with  its  dreams,  its  aspirations,  its 
struggles  and  its  fate.  One  has  only  to  glance  at  the 
position  of  the  heirs  of  Herod  before  Csesar’s  throne; 
one  has  only  to  listen  to  the  petitions  and  supplications 
of  Herod’s  heirs  and  of  the  Judean  ambassadors  to 
realize  that  the  political  doom  has  long  ceased  to  be 

a  specter  and  a  threat,  but  has  been  accepted  by  the 

12 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  1 3 


Jewish  statesmen  as  an  actual  status  quo,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  whether  the  plain  people  realize  it  in  their 
every-day  life  or  not. 

Thus  it  seems  that  in  their  petitions  they  were 
haggling  over  minor  terms  and  comforts;  only  details 
of  submission  appear  to  have  worried  them.  In 
reality  they  were  trying  to  save  their  culture  and  their 
religion.  But  why  did  the  Jewish  ambassadors  de¬ 
mand  provincial  annexation?  Why  did  eight  thou¬ 
sand  Jewish  residents  in  Rome  second  Jerusalem’s  peti¬ 
tion?  Did  they  not  prefer  to  be  at  least  nominally 
independent?  Fifty  Jewish  ambassadors  were  pros¬ 
trated  before  the  throne  of  Cassar  begging  for  annexa¬ 
tion;  the  entire  Jewish  population  of  Rome  was  sup¬ 
porting  these  ambassadors  and  opposing  the  claims  of 
Herod’s  heirs.  Where  then  was  Jewish  patriotism, 
where  the  exclusive  nationalism,  clothed  in  all-consum¬ 
ing  religious  fervor?  Fifty  ambassadors  were  not 
likely  to  represent  one  particular  clique;  the  entire 
Jewish  populace  in  Rome  could  not  be  moved  by  con¬ 
siderations  of  sheer  expediency.  On  questions  of  rea¬ 
son,  feasibility,  and  expediency  we  divide;  only  on 
the  most  elemental  emotions  are  we  united.  Hence 
their  petition  could  not  possibly  have  gone  against 
those  essentials  which  then  constituted  Jews  as  Jews; 
it  could  not  go  contrary  to  their  religion  and  their 
nationalism. 

Indeed  it  did  not.  Their  supplications  were  dictated 
by  austere  and  conservative  religious  nationalism.  It 
was  not  for  minor  comforts  they  were  bargaining. 
Rather  did  they  feel  that  where  the  question  at  issue 


14  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 


was  between  so-called  political  independence  and  re¬ 
ligion,  then  indeed  it  was  their  religion,  as  they  un¬ 
derstood  it,  their  Jewish  culture  that  they  could  not 
possibly  sacrifice.  It  was  in  reality  a  phase  of  the 
nationalistic  struggle,  although  it  took  the  curious  form 
of  a  petition  for  annexation.  If  they  should  be  man¬ 
aged  by  a  Roman  procurator,  they  hoped  for  complete 
cultural  autonomy,  and  they  expected  to  manage  their 
own  local  affairs.  Ruled  by  a  Herodian  prince,  they 
were  quite  helpless  to  do  so;  for  the  Herodians,  while 
nominally  Jews,  were  striving  hard  to  be  culturally 
Romans.  Naturally  enough  the  cultural  aspiration  of 
their  entire  entourage  was  also  Roman  and  anational; 
and  this  anationalism  was  insidious  and  widespread, 
especially  in  upper-class  circles. 

The  Jews’  petition  for  annexation  was  therefore  to 
be  an  exchange  of  their  sham  political  independence 
for  very  real  cultural  autonomy.  In  other  words,  com¬ 
plete  independence  looked  to  the  more  enlightened 
part  of  the  population  like  a  forlorn  hope;  and  the 
struggle  was  waged  for  a  home  rule  that  would  not 
infringe  upon  religious  traditions.  Statesmen  they 
may  perhaps  have  been,  to  follow  these  tactics;  but 
^they  were  certainly  not  philosophers.  They  did  not 
realize  that  the  growing  religious  and  cultural  con¬ 
servatism  and  nationalism  were  an  ideological  expres¬ 
sion  of  their  political  unrest;  were  but  the  spiritual 
flavor  of  their  national  and  political  struggle  for  in¬ 
dependence.  They  did  not  realize  that  their  religious 
Tulture  and  their  political  nationalism  were  so  inti¬ 
mately  tied  up  together  that  they  could  be  served  only 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  IJ 

by  the  sword.  Hence  it  was  most  unlikely  that  cul¬ 
tural  autonomy  could  really  accept  and  adjust  itself  to 
the  political  downfall  and  the  annexation  as  a  province 
for  which  they  were  petitioning.  Besides,  so  far  as 
Rome  was  concerned,  there  was  but  one  practical  alter¬ 
native.  A  Herodian  government  under  Rome,  offering 
no  resistance  to  Rome,  was  precarious  and  under¬ 
mining.  It  was  tantamount  to  a  complete  cultural  sur¬ 
render. 

Among  the  abuses  of  Herod,  which  the  ambassadors 
quoted  as  reason  for  annexation,  is  the  frank  state¬ 
ment,  that 

Herod  did  not  abstain  from  making  many  innovations,  according 
to  his  own  inclinations.  .  .  .  That  he  never  stopped  adorning  the 
cities  that  lay  in  their  neighborhood,  but  that  the  cities  belonging 
to  his  own  government  were  ruined  and  utterly  destroyed.^ 

Just  how  was  Herod  adorning  the  cities  of  the  Gen¬ 
tiles?  It  is  not  uninteresting  or  unimportant.  In 
Samaria  Herod  built 

a  very  large  temple  to  Caesar,  and  had  laid  round  about  it  .  .  . 
the  city  Sebaste,  from  Sebastus  or  Augustus. 

With  similar  temples  to  Caesar  he  filled  Judea,  and 
when  in  honor  of  Caesar 

he  had  filled  his  own  country  with  temples,  he  poured  out  the  like 
plentiful  marks  of  his  esteem  into  his  province,  and  built  many 
cities  which  he  called  Cesareas? 

In  one  of  these  Cesareas  Herod  also  erected  an 

amphitheater,  and  theater,  and  market-place,  in  a  manner  agree¬ 
able  to  that  denomination;  and  appointed  games  every  fifth  year 

^Josephus:  Antiquities,  XVIII,  3,  z 
^Josephus:  Jewish  Wars,  I,  31,  3-/p 


1 6  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

and  called  them  .  .  .  Caesar’s  games,  and  he  himself  proposed  the 
largest  prizes  upon  the  hundred  and  ninety-second  Olympiad.^ 

Herod  went  farther  still  in  emphasizing  his  adher¬ 
ence  to  so-called  Greco-Roman  culture.  He  built 
amphitheaters  in  Tripoli,  Damascus  and  Ptolomeis, 
agoras  at  Berytus  and  Tyre,  theaters  in  Sidon  and 
Damascus. 

And  when  Apollo’s  temple  had  been  burned  down,  he  rebuilt 
it  at  his  own  expense.  .  .  .  What  need  I  speak  of  the  presents  he 
made  to  the  Lycians  and  Samnians?  or  of  his  great  liberality 
through  all  Ionia?  .  .  .  And  are  not  the  Athenians  and  Lacede¬ 
monians,  the  Nicopolitans  and  that  Pergamus  which  is  in  Mysia, 
full  of  donations  that  Herod  presented  them  with?  ^ 

As  Herod’s  most  splendid  gift  Josephus  regards  the 
endowment  of  the  Olympic  games,  which  were  suffer¬ 
ing  much  from  lack  of  funds. 

What  favors  he  bestowed  on  the  Eleans  was  a  donation  not 
only  in  common  to  all  Greece,  but  to  all  the  habitable  earth  as  far 
as  the  glory  of  the  Olympic  games  reached.^ 

As  a  matter  of  fact  Herod  even  took  part  in  these 
games  himself. 

These  activities  of  Herod  are  obviously  too  strenu¬ 
ous,  too  consistent  to  be  casual.  Inwardly  anything 
but  a  Roman  gentleman,  he  took  the  world-culture, 
Hellenism,  for  his  ideal,  and  made  outward  assimila¬ 
tion  to  that  culture  his  ardent  endeavor.  He  was  far 
from  being  a  unique  specimen  in  Judea.  Many  felt 
as  he  did,  but  they  belonged  to  the  upper  classes  and 
were  certainly  a  small  minority.  The  bulk  of  the  popu^ 

'Josephus:  Jewish  Wars,  I,  21,  8. 

^Josephus:  Jewish  Wars,  I,  21,  ii. 

®  Josephus;  Jewish  Wars,  I,  21,  xz. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  17 

lation  resented  and  resisted  the  Greco-Roman  culture; 
they  resisted  it  religiously  as  sacrilege  and  nationalis- 
tically  as  treason. 

It  was  a  tangible  incident  of  precisely  such  nature 
which  led  to  the  break,  to  a  revolt  and  a  petition  for 
annexation. 

Josephus  reports  the  speech  which  Herod  made  to 
the  people  of  Jerusalem  when  he  was  about  to  rebuild 
their  temple.  He  told  them  what  made  his  under¬ 
taking  possible : 

I  have  had  peace  a  long  time,  and  have  gained  great  riches  and 
large  revenues,  and,  what  is  the  principal  thing  of  all,  I  am  at 
amity  with  and  well  regarded  by  the  Romans,  who,  if  I  may  say  so, 
are  the  rulers  of  the  whole  world?- 

Subordination  to  Rome,  however,  was  emphasized  in 
more  than  speeches.  The  very  temple  of  Jerusalem 
was  to  bear  witness  thereto.  A  large  Roman  eagle 
made  out  of  gold  at  vast  expense  was  erected  over  the 
principal  gate  of  the  temple.  Since  any  kind  of  image 
was  forbidden  to  Jews  by  the  law  and  the  prophets, 
that  Roman  eagle  was  not  exactly  cherished.  Resist¬ 
ance  against  Herod  just  then  was  useless.  When 
Herod’s  health  began  to  fail,  however,  the  Jews 
started  an  agitation  to  remove  from  the  temple  the 
eagle  which  in  their  eyes  was  both  a  sacrilege  and  a 
national  insult.  The  leaders  of  the  movement  were 
the  most  eloquent  two  Jews  of  their  time:  Judas,  the 
son  of  Saripheus,  and  Matthias,  the  son  of  Margalo- 
thus,  both  teachers  of  the  law.  They  realized  that 
Herod  would  punish  their  deed  with  death.  But  they 

Josephus:  Antiquities,  XV,  2,  i. 


1 8  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 


felt  that  those  who  die  for  such  a  deed  “will  die  for 
the  preservation  and  observation  of  the  law  of  their 
fathers  and  will  also  acquire  everlasting  fame  and  com¬ 
mendation.”  ^  The  eagle  was  pulled  down  and  cut  to 
pieces  by  a  number  of  young  men  under  the  leadership 
of  this  Matthias  and  Judas,  and  Herod  ordered  all 
of  them  to  be  burned  alive.^ 

These  men  were  honored  by  the  Jews  as  martyrs. 
When  in  the  course  of  time  Herod  died  and  Archelaus 
succeeded  him,  Archelaus,  pending  Rome’s  confirma¬ 
tion  of  his  succession,  was  very  anxious  to  please  the 
people  and  avoid  annexation.  The  people  demanded 
lower  taxes,  lower  duties  on  commodities,  freedom 
for  prisoners.  All  these  demands  Archelaus  gladly 
granted.  But  then  the  people  began  to  mourn  the 
rebels  whom  Herod  had  burned.  Let  us  quote  Jose¬ 
phus  again: 

They  lamented  those  that  were  put  to  death  by  Herod,  because 
they  had  cut  down  the  golden  eagle  that  had  been  over  the  gate  of 
the  temple.  Nor  was  this  mourning  of  a  private  nature,  but  the 
lamentations  were  very  great,  the  mourning  solemn,  and  the 
weeping  such  as  was  loudly  heard  over  all  the  city,  as  being  for 
those  men  who  had  perished  for  the  laws  of  their  country  and  for 
the  temple.  They  cried  out  that  a  punishment  ought  to  be  in¬ 
flicted  for  these  men  upon  those  that  were  honored  by  Herod.® 

Not  being  able  to  appease  the  multitudes,  Archelaus 
resorted  to  force.  About  three  thousand  Jews  were 
slaughtered  by  his  soldiers.  It  was  this  incident  which 
led  to  a  general  uprising  and  an  intervention  of  the 

^Josephus:  Antiquities,  XVII,  6,  a. 

^Josephus:  Antiquities,  XVII,  6,  3-4. 

®  Josephus.*  Jewish  Wars,  II,  i,  2. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  1 9 

Roman  forces,  and  to  the  deputation  from  Jerusalem 
which  petitioned  annexation. 

Should  an  impression  be  gained  that  the  Hero- 
dians  were  responsible  for  Hellenizing  the  people  and 
Romanizing  the  commonwealth,  this  impression  is 
completely  out  of  focus  and  erroneous.  The  Hero- 
dians  themselves  were  pawns  in  the  game,  mere  inci¬ 
dents  that  may  serve  as  illustrations.  The  Hellenistic 
tendency,  the  tendency  toward  world  culture  and 
toward  a  Judaic  anationalism  filled  the  pages  of  Jewish 
history,  not  only  long  before  the  Herodian  dynasty, 
but  even  long  before  the  Hasmonean  ascendency.  In 
fact  it  was  the  popular  and  religious  reaction  to  that 
very  tendency  that  culminated  in  the  Maccabean 
struggles. 

The  prelude  to  the  Maccabean  struggles  introduces 
us  to  an  educated  upper  class,  Hellenized  and  Helleniz¬ 
ing,  and  to  an  opposing  party  called  “the  pious”  or 
“the  Chassidim.”  It  was  not  the  Chassidim  who  had 
the  upper  hand.  The  government  was  in  the  hands 
of  the  Hellenistic  party.  The  high  priest  was  a  cer¬ 
tain  Jason,  who  was  hardly  behind  Herod  in  his  “cul¬ 
tural”  tendencies.  He,  too,  sent  many  gifts  to  pagan 
festivals,  such  as  the  sacrificial  festival  of  Hercules  at 
the  games  in  Tyre.  He,  too,  erected  a  Greek  gym¬ 
nasium  under  the  castle  of  Jerusalem;  and  the  author 
of  the  Second  Maccabees  reports  to  us  that  he  caused 
the  noblest  of  the  young  men  to  dress  like  Greeks. 

And  thus  there  was  an  extreme  of  Greek  fashions,  and  an  ad¬ 
vance  of  alien  religion,  by  reason  of  the  exceeding  profaneness 
of  Jason  that  ungodly  man  and  no  high  priest-  ^■hat  the  priests 


20  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

had  no  more  any  zeal  for  the  services  of  the  altar,  but  despising 
the  sanctuary,  and  neglecting  the  sacrifices,  they  hastened  to  enjoy 
that  which  was  unlawfully  provided  in  the  palaestra  after  the  sum¬ 
mons  of  the  discus;  making  of  no  account  the  honors  of  their 
fathers,  and  thinking  the  glories  of  the  Greeks  the  best  of  all.^ 

Hellenism  was  rapidly  encroaching  upon  Judaism, 
and  the  Hellenistic  party  had  full  sway  in  Jerusalem. 
Frankly  they  were  none  too  proud  of  being  Jews. 
They  conspired  openly  with  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
against  those  who  held  fast  to  the  traditions,  and  en¬ 
couraged  him  to  accelerate  the  Hellenization  and 
abbreviate  its  process.  He  prohibited  the  exercise  of 
Jewish  rites,  on  pain  of  torture  and  death;  he  forbade 
the  Jews  to  remain  Jews,  to  worship  the  God  of  their 
fathers,  and  by  force  compelled  them  to  sacrifice  to 
the  gods  of  Olympus  and  of  the  Hellenic  world. 

When  thus  a  war  of  extermination  was  waged  by 
the  Syrian  king  against  the  Jews;  when  no  other  alter¬ 
native  was  left  them  but  to  sacrifice  either  their  lives 
or  their  religion,  then  they  arose  determined  to  defend 
both  in  an  unequal  struggle.  Under  the  leadership  of 
Matthias  and,  after  his  death,  of  his  son  Judas,  the 
Maccabee,  the  Jews  inflicted  severe  punishment  upon 
the  generals  of  Antiochus.  Wherever  the  victorious 
arms  of  the  Maccabeans  went,  they  swept  before  them 
all  Hellenism  and  anationalism.  The  Maccabean 
family  established  themselves  first  as  popular  leaders 
and  later  as  a  theocratic  dynasty  of  high  priests  and 
rulers  of  the  people,  the  Hasmonean  dynasty. 

Such  is  the  epitome  of  a  phase  of  the  struggle  which 
lasted  decades.  Most  of  the  details,  of  course,  are 

*II  Maccabees  4:13-15. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  21 


of  no  interest  to  us.  And  yet  there  are  pages  in  the 
history  of  these  struggles  which  are  important  for 
later  reference  and  which  we  should  remember. 
First  of  all,  Judas  the  Maccabee,  whilst  struggling 
against  heathendom,  is  forced  to  seek  an  ‘^alliance” 
with  Rome.^  For  it  became  early  enough  quite  clear 
that  no  amount  of  courage  could  avail  the  little  nation 
in  the  long  run  against  the  superior  strength  of  Syria. 
So  we  find  Simon,  the  brother  of  Judas,  who  suc¬ 
ceeded  him  in  leadership,  again  sending  ambassadors 
to  Rome  in  139  B.  C.,  who  brought  with  them  rich 
gifts  and  sought  the  renewal  of  Judas’  covenant  of 
friendship.  Thus  already  in  the  days  of  their  struggle 
for  independence  from  Syria  the  Jews  were  obliged  to 
seek  the  protection  of  Rome.  This  same  protection 
led  not  very  much  later  to  intervention  and  de¬ 
pendence. 

Another  detail  that  should  be  borne  in  mind  is  that 
Judas  Maccabaeus,  even  in  the  days  when  fortune 
smiled  upon  him  and  victory  accompanied  his  arms 
everywhere,  could  not  undertake  to  secure  Judaism  in 
either  Galilee  or  Gilead.  There  the  Gentiles  were  so 
numerous  and  so  strong  that  the  early  Maccabees  did 
not  even  undertake  to  Judaize  these  provinces.  The 
first  book  of  Maccabees  and  Josephus  ^  inform  us  that 
Judas  went  to  Gilead  with  one  army  and  sent  his 
brother  Simon  with  another  army  three  thousand  men 
strong  into  Galilee.  After  many  battles  against  the 
heathen  in  Galilee  and  as  many  victories,  Simon 
gathered  all  the  Jews  in  Galilee  with  their  households 

Maccabees  8;  Josephus;  Antiquities,  XII,  10,  6. 

*I  Maccabees  4:60-61.  Josephus:  Antiquities,  XII,  7,  7. 


22  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

and  their  goods  and  convoyed  them  amid  great  re¬ 
joicing  to  Judea  where  they  could  be  secure. 

One  hundred  and  fifty  years  later,  when  Jesus  lived 
among  the  people  of  Galilee,  it  was  of  course  a  differ¬ 
ent  Galilee.  Judaism  was  strong  there  and  at  times 
peculiarly  intolerant  of  Roman  domination,  as  the  re¬ 
bellion  of  Judas,  the  Gaulonite,  or  even  that  of  his 
father  proved.  But  there  is  also  little  doubt  about 
the  large  Gentile  population  in  Galilee,  much  larger 
than  in  any  part  of  Judea  proper.  Where  two  races 
are  living  side  by  side  with  differing  traditions  and 
»  differing  religions,  two  social  phenomena  can  as  a  rule 
be  observed:  greater  mutual  understanding  than  else¬ 
where  and  greater  tolerance  under  ordinary  circum¬ 
stances,  for  the  strangers  are  not  strange  to  them; 
but  in  times  of  excitement,  greater  antagonism,  race 
hatred  and  general  intolerance,  for  strangers  are  near 
at  hand.  Thus  in  Galilee,  where  Jews  and  Gentiles 
came  in  close  contact,  there  was  the  basis  for  relations 
more  antagonistic  as  well  as  more  friendly.  When 
the  Jew  was  friendly  he  was  likely  to  speculate  and 
wonder  whether  after  all  his  Heavenly  Father  were 
not  the  father  of  the  Gentile  fisherman  and  farmer  as 
well.  When,  however,  the  Jew  of  Galilee  was  un¬ 
friendly,  the  very  proximity  and  daily  contact  with 
the  Gentile  must  have  made  him  peculiarly  jealous 
of  Jewish  independence.  For  Jewish  independence 
meant  Jewish  ascendency  in  a  mixed  population,  while 
Jewish  dependence  involved  not  only  national  degrada¬ 
tion,  but  also  particular  and  immediate  personal  degra¬ 
dation  in  the  Jew’s  relative  position  to  his  Gentile 
neighbor. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  23 

Among  the  upper  classes  of  Jerusalem,  Philhellen- 
ism  was  probably  never  completely  stamped  out.  It 
is  well  to  remember  that  assimilation  and  admiration 
for  foreign  habits  and  ideas  are  much  more  likely  to 
be  found  on  the  top  than  at  the  bottom  of  society; 
for  what  characterizes  the  lower  and  humbler  strata 
is  their  traditionalism.  Here  is  another  detail  of  the 
Maccabean  struggle  that  may  serve  as  an  illustration; 
for  the  very  chronicles  of  Maccabees  emphasize  indi¬ 
rectly  the  fact  that  it  was  difficult  to  eradicate  Hellen¬ 
ism.  The  first  book  tells  us  about  Jonathan,  the 
brother  of  Judas: 

The  sword  was  now  at  rest  in  Israel,  and  Jonathan  dwelt  in 
Michmash;  and  he  began  to  judge  the  people,  and  drove  out  the 
ungodly  from  Israel.^ 

The  ungodly  were  of  course  the  Jews  with  Hellenis¬ 
tic  tendencies.  Yet  how  difficult  it  was  for  him  to 
drive  out  Philhellenes  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  Jona¬ 
than  had  to  live  in  Michmash.  He  lived  in  Michmash 
because  Jerusalem  was  at  the  time  in  the  hands  of 
that  very  ungodly  Hellenistic  party. 

True,  soon  enough  Jerusalem  was  in  the  hands  of 
the  Maccabeans,  but  no  sooner  did  the  Hasmonean 
dynasty  completely  establish  itself  than  it,  too,  began 
to  follow  the  trend  toward  the  world  culture.  Thus 
we  find  John  Hyrcanus  abandoning  the  Pharisees,  the 
strictly  orthodox  party,  and  associating  with  the  Sad- 
ducees.  Neither  the  Pharisees  nor  the  Sadducees  were 
a  sect  with  static  dogmas,  as  text-books  of  theology 
are  likely  to  present  them  to  us.  Rather  do  both  sects 
represent  potential  tendencies  and  viewpoints.  The 

‘I  Maccabees,  9:73. 


24  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

Pharisees  accepted  traditional  interpretations  of  the 
law,  for  they  were  traditionalists.  The  Sadducees  ac¬ 
cepted  the  national  and  religious  minimum;  the  law, 
but  not  the  added  traditions.  They  were  the  rich 
upper  class;  the  populace  were  with  the  Pharisees. 

The  Sadducees  are  able  to  persuade  none  but  the  rich,  and  have 
not  the  populace  obsequious  to  them;  but  the  Pharisees  have  the 
multitude  on  their  sidej 

The  law  itself,  obviously  could  never  be  so  cul¬ 
turally  isolating  as  the  law  plus  the  entire  body  of 
sanctified  traditions.  The  well-to-do  liberals  could 
easily  be  persuaded  to  drop  the  traditional  additions 
and  interpretations,  but  not  so  the  populace.  Neither 
was  the  populace  in  the  habit  of  giving  themselves 
Greek  names.  But  all  the  sons  of  Hyrcanus  have 
Greek  names ;  Aristobulus,  Antigonus,  Alexander.  To 
be  sure,  as  a  high  priest  Aristobulus  had  use  for  a  He¬ 
brew  name  as  well,  which  happened  to  be  Yehuda — 
Judas.  This  king,  according  to  Josephus,  either  so 
favored  Greek  ideas  that  he  was  known  as  a  lover  of 
Hellenism,  as  a  Philhellen,  or  actually  adopted  the 
title  Philhellen.^  Aristobulus’s  successor  and  brother, 
Alexander  Jannaeus,  even  introduced  bilingual  coins 
with  the  two  inscriptions  in  Greek  and  Hebrew,  and 
incidentally  adopted  the  title  Melek — ^a^iKevs. 

All  this  tends  to  show  that  the  Hellenistic  tendency 
was  not  of  Herodian  making.  It  existed  fully  as 
strongly  in  the  pre-Maccabean  period;  it  was  checked 
by  the  nationalistic  and  religious  revolt  of  the  Macca* 

^Josephus:  Antiquities,  XIII,  19,  6. 

Antiquities,  XIII.  3. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  25 

beans ;  it  revived  again  under  the  Hasmonean  dynasty. 
And  as  the  little  Jewish  kingdom  was  becoming  more 
and  more  a  dependency  of  Rome,  two  tendencies  were 
rapidly  developing;  that  of  submission  to  Rome  and 
cultural  assimilation  among  the  upper  class,  and  that 
of  growing  nationalism  and  religious  orthodoxy.  The  • 
nationalism  and  religious  orthodoxy  became  one  and 
indivisible,  yet  the  accent  was  on  the  religion,  for 
tradition  was  bound  up  with  religion.  Tradition  was 
religious,  and  what  else  after  all  was  nationality  but  • 
the  sum  total  of  traditions? 

Romanization  threatened  the  very  life  of  their  tradi¬ 
tion;  it  interfered  with  their  religion.  A  Herodian 
prince  ruling  by  the  grace  of  Rome  was  sure  to  inter¬ 
fere  much  more  than  a  Roman  administrator.  At  least 
they  thought  so.  They  wanted  independence;  but  if 
no  independence  was  to  be  had,  the  next  best  thing  was 
cultural  home  rule  under  a  Sanhedrin  of  their  own 
choosing,  autonomy  that  would  guarantee  them  their 
own  religious  traditions.  Such  autonomy  was  unthink¬ 
able  under  a  Herodian  prince.  It  was  quite  conceiv¬ 
able  under  a  Roman  governor.  Hence  their  petition 
for  annexation  to  Syria.  Interesting  it  is  that  the 
vicissitudes  of  their  national  history,  a  long,  long  his¬ 
tory  that  was  dating  back  to  their  Babylonian  cap¬ 
tivity,  taught  the  Jews  to  consider  themselves  primarily 
a  religious  entity;  interesting  it  is  that  the  Jews  them¬ 
selves  were  petitioning  to  be  permitted  to  render  to 
Caesar  what  is  Caesar’s  for  the  sake  of  being  free  to 
give  to  their  God  what  is  God’s. 


CHAPTER  IV 


The  annexation  of  Judea  to  the  province  of  Syria, 
in  spite  of  the  possibility  which  it  offered  of  greater 
cultural  autonomy,  could  neither  solve  the  problem 
nor  save  the  situation.  Granting  even  that  orthodoxy 
in  Jerusalem  had  a  freer  hand  under  a  Roman  proc¬ 
urator  than  it  could  have  had  under  a  Herodian 
prince,  that  more  tenacious  orthodoxy  was  in  itself  but 
a  reaction  against  the  encroaching  national  doom.  By 
annexation  the  national  doom  was  being  not  averted 
but  consummated.  True  enough,  any  Roman  Pontius 
Pilate  would  have  let  the  Jews  have  their  own  way  in 
religious  matters.  He  would  have  washed  his  hands 
of  them,  while  a  Herodian  king  would  wash  his  hands 
in  the  blood  of  his  Jewish  adversaries.  But  what  was 
nationalistic  orthodoxy  gaining?  Subjectively  and 
psychologically  the  Jews  were  losing,  more  irrevocably 
than  ever. 

Where  cultural  assimilation  preceded  political  and 
territorial  absorption  by  Rome,  the  final  act  was  felt 
but  little.  The  death  of  a  nation  was  made  easy.  The 
process  of  assimilation  involved  in  fact  a  cultural  com¬ 
promise.  The  Romans  themselves  were  culturally 
proselytized  by  Greece,  by  Egypt,  by  Mithraism,  even 
by  Judaism.  Assimilation  involved  to  some  extent  an 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  27 

exchange  of  cultural  concepts.  Jewish  proselytism  was 
but  an  incident  of  assimilation,  not  of  Jewish  national¬ 
ism.  The  Roman  lady  who  became  converted  to 
Judaism  and  sent  money  to  the  temple  remained  a 
Roman  lady.  She  might  have  chosen  to  worship  Isis 
without  becoming  an  Egyptian;  she  chose  Jehovah 
without  ceasing  to  be  a  Roman.  Proselytism  without 
national  absorption  was  already  a  first  step  to  assimila¬ 
tion,  for  it  involved  the  denationalization  of  a  national 
religion. 

The  process  of  Jewish  assimilation  was  cut  short  in 
Judea  by  dramatic  political  events  and  the  nationalistic 
reaction  of  the  masses.  The  brutal  aggression  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  put  an  end  to  all  assimilation  and 
caused  the  Maccabean  revolt.  True  enough,  the  culti¬ 
vated  and  educated  Jews  realized  quite  well  that  they 
dealt  with  Rome,  the  ruler  of  the  habitable  earth. 
Whether  a  Herodian  prince,  or  a  Josephus,  or  a  high 
priest  like  Joazar — any  one  of  them  knew  what  the 
Roman  Empire  was,  knew  that  a  conflict  with  that 
Empire  could  end  in  but  one  way.  But  the  plain  people 
knew  only  their  traditional  religion  and  glimpsed  but 
vaguely  the  insuperable  power  of  Rome. 

Now  that  Rome  was  establishing  herself  firmly  and 
frankly  as  Judea’s  avowed  lord,  the  increased  national 
feeling,  the  bitter  national  antagonism  of  the  Jews  was 
equally  frank.  The  religion  of  their  forefathers  be¬ 
came  the  unfurled  banner  of  a  nation  at  bay.  From 
now  on,  whether  in  passive  resistance  or  in  open  re¬ 
bellion,  the  only  lord  and  master  they  recognized  was 
the  Lord  of  Hosts,  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and 


28  TOV/ARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

Jacob,  with  whom  they  were  in  covenant,  and  who 
must  send  the  great  Deliverer  to  save  his  people  in 
their  hour  of  need. 

Greater  and  greater  became  the  pressure;  greater 
and  greater  grew  that  need.  Where  was  the  Messiah? 
Would  he  come  in  the  future?  Oh,  but  there  was  no 
longer  any  future ;  it  was  then  and  there  that  he  must 
come.  Yea,  to  save  his  people  he  must  have  come  al¬ 
ready,  must  be  among  them,  only  unrecognized,  un¬ 
known  to  them^ — Messiah,  the  anointed  of  God,  the 
Christ. 

Shall  we  now  ask  the  question  under  what  influences 
Jesus  developed;  what  problems  absorbed  him  before 
he  began  his  ministry?  Or  is  such  a  question  super¬ 
fluous?  The  central  problem  of  his  people  was  so 
enveloping  that  we  can  take  for  granted  that  Jesus’ 
religious  and  intellectual  life  revolved  around  it,  and 
that  his  own  development  consisted  in  the  gradual  solu¬ 
tion  of  this  very  problem.  To  repeat,  at  the  given 
time  there  was  but  one  problem  for  the  Jews- — a  single, 
all-absorbing  national  problem,  that  became  under  the 
circumstances  the  religious  problem  as  well.  It  was 

*  the  problem  of  existence,  the  problem  of  escape  from 
certain  annihilation. 

One  was  the  problem,  but  the  solutions  were  several. 
Clearly  the  Jewish  nationalists  and  the  Herodians 
could  not  possibly  agree  upon  the  same  solution.  Even 
the  religious  nationalists  of  the  time  differed  consider¬ 
ably.  Yet  in  spite  of  all  their  differences  as  to  method, 

•  their  hope  was  the  same.  This  hope  was  the  national 
salvation,  and  their  reliance  was  upon  Messiah,  the 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  29 

Christ,  the  anointed  King.  Do  you  remember  the  song 
of  Zacharias? 

Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel;  for  he  hath  visited  and 
redeemed  his  people,  And  hath  raised  up  a  horn  of  salvation  for 
us  in  the  house  of  his  servant  David;  As  he  spake  by  the  mouth 
of  his  holy  prophets,  which  have  been  since  the  world  began :  That 
we  should  be  saved  from  our  enemies,  and  from  the  hand  of  all 
that  hate  us;  To  perform  the  mercy  promised  to  our  fathers,  and 
to  remember  his  holy  covenant.^ 

Faith  in  the  immediate  national  Deliverer  was  the 
great  need.  That  faith,  though  it  attached  itself  to 
God’s  own  promises,  indicated  in  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  really  opened  a  flood-gate  of  new  religious 
interpretations,  and  new  religious  beliefs.  The  law 
and  the  prophets  were  given  and  standardized;  they 
contained  no  detailed  information  about  the  great 
need,  the  actual  means  of  deliverance  and  salvation. 
Here  was  a  free  region  for  mystic,  religious  and  po¬ 
litical  speculation.  Such  speculation  could  not  be 
standardized.  It  was  like  a  set  of  popular  supplements 
to  the  existing  religion.  Being  of  immediate  signifi¬ 
cance,  offering  solutions  of  the  immediate  great  prob¬ 
lem,  the  free  supplements  had  great  weight.  Of 
course  the  law  was  observed  and  revered  traditionally, 
but  interest  was  centered  on  these  popular  additions  to 
the  canonic  scriptures.  In  scrutinizing  the  future,  they 
were  reinterpreting  the  past.  Attached  to  the  tradi¬ 
tional  religion,  they  were  yet  inevitably  modifying  the 
very  law.  Not  only  were  Messiah  and  his  kingdom  an 
immediate  political  necessity  and  therefore  the  center 

*  Luke  1 : 68-74. 


30  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

of  interest,  but  theologically  they  fulfilled  God’s  own 
part  in  the  covenant  with  his  chosen  people.  The  old 
law  laid  out  all  the  paths  of  conduct  for  its  people. 
It  never  undertook,  however,  to  regulate  the  ways  of 
God.  Interest  was  now  concentrated  upon  these  very 
ways  of  God,  a  realm  offering  unlimited  freedom  to 
new  vision,  new  insight,  new  interpretation. 

Intellectual,  political  and  spiritual  life  was  height¬ 
ened  and  intensified.  That  is  characteristic  of  all 
critical  periods.  Do  not  let  us  assume  that  orthodoxy 
was  weakened.  Not  at  all.  There  was  now  room  for 
deeply  religious  heterodoxy,  but  orthodoxy  itself  be¬ 
came  much  intensified.  The  tension  bordered  on  hys¬ 
teria  ;  as  is  indicated  in  the  eschatological  literature  of 
the  time  and  by  the  prevalence  of  nervous  maladies 
among  the  people  in  the  days  of  Christ’s  ministry. 

This  great  nervous  strain  was  part  of  the  crisis.  It 
is  precisely  such  a  crisis  that  leads  the  many  to  the 
border  of  hysteria  or  to  nervous  anomalies  of  one  kind 
or  another,  and  that  leads  the  few  to  the  most  extraor¬ 
dinary  social,  intellectual  and  moral  achievements. 
There  should  be  nothing  mystical  about  the  trite  ob¬ 
servation  that  every  crisis  produces  its  great  men.  The 
fact  is  that  under  ordinary  conditions  of  existence, 
when  we  are  quite  sane  and  safe,  we  are  using  but  a 
small  fraction  of  our  potential  intellectual  and  emo¬ 
tional  powers.  It  is  precisely  such  social  strain  pro¬ 
duced  by  a  crisis  that  increases  not  our  potential  capac¬ 
ity,  but  the  percentage  of  capacity  at  which  we  are 
actually  working,  thinking,  feeling.  Such  a  crisis,  while 
greatly  increasing  numerically  the  broad  base  of  the 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  3 1 

Intellectually  and  emotionally  active  members  of  so¬ 
ciety,  quickens  as  well  the  activities  of  the  individual, 
and  further  heightens  the  individual  lives  through  their 
manifold  Interreactions.  Greater  achievement  in  both 
quantity  and  quality  is  almost  inevitable.  All  dimen¬ 
sions  are  enlarged.  Creative  ability  is  enlarged;  de¬ 
structive  folly  Is  enlarged;  all  human  activities,  all  ele¬ 
ments  of  friction  are  increased  for  good  and  for  evil; 
and  the  scale  must  be  larger  for  the  outstanding  per¬ 
sonalities  who  are  to  marshal  the  enlarged  forces  of 
life. 

All  dimensions  being  enlarged,  single  figures  are  not 
outstanding  unless  they  are  of  heroic  size.  Hence  they 
tower  long  afterwards  over  life’s  subsided  flow,  when 
humanity  Is  again  resting  in  routine  existence  from  Its 
mental  strain  or  physical  exhaustion.  Conditions  that 
call  for  Intensified  life  with  Its  ecstasy  and  hysteria, 
and  Its  greater  mental  effort,  are  In  their  very  nature 
inimical  to  all  routine  orthodoxy,  political,  religious 
or  social.  For  orthodoxy  is  in  Its  essence  an  estab¬ 
lished  routine,  and  a  crisis  means  exactly  that  the 
routine  Is  endangered.  Orthodoxy  Is  the  standardized 
organization,  the  delimitation  of  the  flow  of  life  at  Its 
low  average  level;  It  cannot  hold  within  Its  banks  the 
rushing  freshets  of  a  quickened  life.  Who  In  these 
troubled  waters  will  undertake  to  discover  where 
orthodoxy  ends  and  heterodoxy  begins? 

The  entire  literature  of  the  time  Is  a  fragmentary 
expression  of  this  quickened  life  of  the  nation.  The 
records  of  every  Messianic  hope  contain  a  preamble 
somewhat  similar  to  the  especially  well  phrased  pas- 


32  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 


sage  in  the  Second  Esdras,  which,  although  written 
after  Christ,  expresses  concisely  the  spirit  of  the  con¬ 
stant  Jewish  question. 

All  this  have  I  spoken  before  thee,  O  Lord,  because  thou  hast 
said  that  for  our  sakes  thou  madest  this  world.  As  for  the  other 
nations,  which  also  came  from  Adam,  thou  hast  said  that  they  are 
nothing,  and  are  like  unto  spittle:  and  thou  hast  likened  the 
abundance  of  them  unto  a  drop  that  falleth  from  a  vessel.  And 
now,  O  Lord,  behold,  these  nations,  which  are  reputed  as  nothing, 
be  lords  over  us,  and  devour  us.  But  we  thy  people,  whom  thou 
hast  called  thy  firstborn,  thy  only  begotten,  and  thy  fervent  lover, 
are  given  into  their  hands.  If  the  world  now  be  made  for  our 
sakes,  why  do  we  not  possess  for  an  inheritance  our  world?  How 
long  shall  it  endure?* 

This  in  the  main  is  the  preface  to  the  entire  vast 
popular  literature,  political  and  prophetic,  which 
covers  a  period  of  about  three  centuries,  and  of  which 
but  sample  specimens  survive.  Conceived  at  different 
times  under  varying  influences  and  conditions  the  char¬ 
acter  of  the  Messiah  varied.  A  century  or  so  before 
Christ  Messianic  quality  was  attributed  to  the  early 
Maccabean  leaders;  a  century  after  Christ  the  last 
great  rebel  leader  Bar-Kochbah  was  viewed  as  the 
Messiah.  Conceived  under  different  oppressions,  con¬ 
templated  from  different  viewpoints,  the  scope  and 
character  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  differed  widely. 
It  will  not  be  in  keeping  with  our  purpose  to  go  through 
the  entire  gamut  of  tones  and  variations  of  salvation 
which  this  literature,  in  so  far  as  it  survives,  offers  us. 
It  suffices  that  all  this  literature  has  one  common  pur- 

^  II  Esdras  6,  55-59.  The  Apocrypha,  Revised  Version,  1894.  See 
:V  Esdras  in  Charles:  Apocrypha  and  Pseudoepigrapha  of  the  Old 
Testament,  v.  2,  p.  579. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  33 


pose:  finally,  somehow,  It  saves  the  Jew;  the  promises 
that  it  holds  out  to  the  Gentile  world  are  less  encour¬ 
aging.  Let  us  quote,  for  example,  from  the  Assump¬ 
tion  of  Moses,  written  in  all  probability  about  A.  D. 
7-29.  Like  most  of  the  Messianic  literature  it  is  re¬ 
plete  with  all  kinds  of  heavenly  signs,  such  supernat¬ 
ural  signs  as  were  demanded  and  made  the  criterion 
of  Jesus’s  Christhood. 

And  the  earth  shall  tremble;  to  its  confines  shall  it  be  shaken: 
and  the  high  mountains  shall  be  made  low  and  the  hills  shall  be 
shaken  and  fall.  And  the  horns  of  the  sun  shall  be  broken  and 
he  shall  be  turned  into  darkness;  and  the  moon  shall  not  give 
her  light  and  the  circle  of  the  stars  shall  be  disturbed.  And 
the  sea  shall  retire  in  the  abyss,  and  the  fountains  of  water 
shall  fail  and  the  rivers  shall  dry  up.  For  the  Most  High 
will  arise,  the  Eternal  God  alone,  and  he  will  appear  to  punish  the 
Gentiles,  and  he  will  destroy  all  their  idols.  Then  thou,  O  Israel, 
shalt  be  happy  and  thou  shalt  mount  upon  the  neck  and  wings 
of  the  eagle,’^  and  they  shall  be  ended  and  God  will  exalt  thee. 
.  .  .  And  thou  shalt  look  from  on  high  and  see  thy  enemies  in 
Gehenna  and  thou  shalt  recognize  them  and  rejoice.  And  thou 
shalt  give  thanks  and  confess  thy  Creator.^ 

In  the  so-called  Psalter  of  Solomon,  written  after 
Pompey’s  invasion  of  Judea  somewhere  between  63 
and  48  B.  C.,  the  tenor  is  more  or  less  the  same,  ex¬ 
cept  that  the  hope  is  centered  on  a  king  of  the  House 
of  David. 

Behold,  O  Lord,  and  raise  up  unto  them  their  king,  the  son 
of  David,  at  the  time  in  which  Thou  seest,  O  God,  that  he  may 

‘  I.e.,  triumph  over  Rome. 

’The  Assumption  of  Moses,  10,  4-10.  R.  H.  Charles:  The  Apocrypha 
and  Pseudoepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testament.  Oxford,  1913.  V.  2, 
p.  420-421. 


34  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 


reign  over  Israel,  Thy  servant.  And  gird  him  with  strength  that 
he  may  shatter  unrighteous  rulers,  and  that  he  may  purge  Jeru¬ 
salem  from  nations  that  trample  her  down  to  destruction.^ 

As  in  practically  all  the  literature  of  this  type,  the 
Messianic  hope  and  prayer  spring  from  desperate  po¬ 
litical  conditions  no  longer  to  be  borne. 

The  lawless  one  laid  waste  our  land  so  that  none  inhabited  it. 
They  destroyed  young  and  old  and  their  children  together.  In 
the  heat  of  his  anger  he  sent  them  away  even  unto  the  west.  And 
(he  exposed)  the  rulers  of  the  land  unsparingly  to  derision.^ 

The  King  of  the  house  of  David  (as  it  was  written 
under  the  non-Davidic  Hasmonean  dynasty)  will  crush 
the  Gentiles,  chastise  the  sinners,  cleanse  Israel  and 
send  the  Messiah,  the  xuptos,  the  Lord’s 

anointed,  the  king  anointed  of  the  Lord.^  Here,  as  in 
all  pre-Christian  documents,  the  chief  function  of  the 
Messiah  is  the  overthrow  of  the  oppressors,  the  crush¬ 
ing  of  the  ungodly  powers. 

But  there  are  also  other  notes  in  this  literature  of 
woe  and  hope.  While  in  the  main  the  problem  of  the 
time  was  to  rid  the  nation  of  foreign  oppression,  the 
very  familiarity  with  the  omnipresent  Gentiles  was 
tending  to  undermine  racial  exclusiveness.  Literary 
expression  is  naturally  more  conservative  than  actual 
life.  For  faltering  and  hesitating  is  the  surrender  of 
the  literary  tradition  to  life.  It  surrenders  indirectly 
and  incompletely.  Sacred  to  tradition  were  the  curses 
heaped  upon  the  heads  of  the  Gentiles;  profane,  secu- 

^The  Assumption  of  Moses,  lo,  4-10.  R.  H.  Charles:  The  Apocrypha 
and  Pseudoepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testament.  Oxford,  1913.  V.  2, 
p.  649. 

^Charles:  Apocrypha.  Oxford,  1913.  V.  2,  p.  648. 

^  Ibid.f  p.  650-651.  Psalms  18:8,  17:36. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  35 

lar  and  new  were  the  growing  familiarity,  the  en¬ 
forced  intimacy  with  the  Gentile  world.  This  new 
familiarity  could  not  but  affect  the  traditional  and  nar¬ 
row  outlook.  In  some  of  the  popular  literature,  as, 
for  instance,  in  “The  Testaments  of  the  Twelve 
Patriarchs,”  salvation  Is  promised  not  only  to  the 
Jews,  but  also  to  the  Gentiles,  who  are  to  be  saved 
through  Israel.  On  the  other  hand,  the  conduct  of  a 
good  Gentile  will  be  the  standard  by  which  Israel  will 
be  judged  by  the  Lord.  “And  he  shall  convict  Israel 
through  the  chosen  Gentiles,  as  he  convicted  Esau 
through  the  Medianites  who  loved  their  brethren.”  ^ 

The  apocryphal  literature  went  even  farther;  In  its 
happier  moments  it  cherished  the  visions  and 
prophecies  of  Isaiah  of  eternal  and  universal  peace  and 
the  future  brotherhood  of  mankind.  Incidentally  how 
many  of  the  beautiful  sentiments  in  Virgil,  in  his 
Georgies  and  his  Eclogues,  especially  in  the  fourth,  so- 
called  Messianic  Eclogue,  are  copied  outright  from 
the  Jewish  Sybillines,  who  interpreted  to  the  Greco- 
Roman  world  the  old  visions  of  Isaiah ! 

To  some  Jews  of  the  time  the  visions  of  Isaiah  were 
more  than  prophetic  memories  and  quotations.  There 
on  the  brink  of  war,  they  were  benedictions  of  peace; 
on  the  threshold  of  death  they  were  songs  of  love  and 
life.  Songs  of  love  and  life  when  most  hearts  were 
filled  with  mortal  fear.  How  could  fear-oppressed 
hearts  listen  to  such  songs?  They  could  not.  Only 
by  hatred  greater  than  their  fear  could  that  mortal 
fear  be  overcome.  Hatred  overcame  their  fear  of 

‘Testament  of  Benjamin,  9:3,  9:10.  Charles:  Apocrypha.  Oxford, 
1913.  V.  3,  p.  358”359* 


36  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

death,  and  hastened  them  into  the  arms  of  death.  The 
struggle  with  Rome  meant  death.  Was  there  no  other 
way,  no  other  solution  ? 

Desperate  was  the  external  situation,  desperate  the 
inner  pain  of  souls  searching  for  a  way  out,  instinc¬ 
tively  reaching  towards  light  and  life.  Thus  all  hope 
and  aspiration  were  centered  in  the  coming  of  a  Christ 
whose  mission  is  so  wonderfully  expressed  in  Luke: 
“To  give  light  to  them  that  sit  in  darkness,  and  in 
the  shadow  of  death,  to  guide  our  feet  into  the  way 
of  peace.”  ^ 

^Luke  1:79. 


CHAPTER  V 


In  the  year  70  the  national  tragedy  was  consum¬ 
mated.  The  temple  was  burned  and  Jerusalem  de¬ 
stroyed  ;  its  inhabitants  were  delivered  unto  the  sword, 
crucified,  sold  into  slavery  and  scattered  to  the  four 
corners  of  the  earth.  So  long  protracted  was  the 
tragedy  that  Jesus’  whole  life  and  ministry  occurred 
in  the  midst  of  it.  The  events  of  life  do  not  come  to 
us  named  and  labeled;  neither  did  Judea’s  life  on  the 
eve  of  its  great  historical  catastrophe  carry  banners 
spelling  “tragedy.”  But  even  a  superficial  glance  at 
Jesus’  life  shows  us  the  imminence  of  the  disaster,  and 
how  concretely  Jesus’  life  was  bound  up  with  the  po¬ 
litical  destiny  of  Judea.  For  was  not  Jesus  born  in 
the  days  of  the  tax-enrolment?  Did  not  in  all  prob¬ 
ability  the  same  tax-enrolment  start  the  rebellion  of 
Judas  the  Gaulonite?  Did  the  battle-cry  of  Judas, 
“No  tribute  to  the  Romans,”  ever  die  out  in  Jesus’ 
lifetime? 

Multitudes  followed  Jesus.  Shall  we  assume  that 
his  message  was  in  no  wise  related  to  the  paramount 
interest  of  the  people?  What  did  Jesus  mean  when 
he  reiterated  that  he  was  sent  to  save  the  lost  sheep 
of  Israel?  What  did  his  followers  have  in  mind  when 
they  perceived  in  him  their  Savior,  their  Messiah, 
their  Christ?  What  was  Messiah’s  function,  what  did 
the  people  of  the  time  expect  from  their  Messiah? 

37 


38  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

They  expected  their  national  salvation.  What  that 
national  salvation  meant  was  clear  enough.  Luke 
states  It :  “That  we  should  be  saved  from  our  enemies, 
and  from  the  hand  of  all  that  hate  us.”  ^  He  repeats 
It  a  few  verses  later:  “That  he  would  grant  unto  us 
that  we,  being  delivered  out  of  the  hand  of  our 
enemies,  might  serve  him  without  fear.”  ^ 

Now  when  one  talks  about  national  enemies,  one  is 
talking  about  a  given  historical  moment.  It  was  there¬ 
fore  about  a  given  and  dreaded  historical  moment  that 
Christ  was  speaking  when  he  said: 

O  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  thou  that  killest  the  prophets  and 
stonest  them  that  are  sent  unto  thee,  how  often  would  I  have 
gathered  thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her 
chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not.^ 

And  we  see  clearly  a  definite  historical  moment  when 
we  read: 

See  ye  not  all  these  things?  verily  I  say  unto  you.  There  shall 
not  be  left  here  one  stone  upon  another,  that  shall  not  be  thrown 
down.^ 

The  Inevitable  end  of  the  tragedy  towards  which 
the  children  of  Israel  were  so  swiftly  tending  was  only 
too  obvious.  “And  when  ye  shall  see  Jerusalem  com¬ 
passed  with  armies,  then  know  that  the  desolation 
thereof  Is  nigh.”  ^  Or  as  Mark  states  It: 

But  when  ye  see  the  abomination  of  desolation  .  .  .  standing 
where  it  ought  not  (let  him  that  readeth  understand),  then  let 
them  that  be  in  Judea  flee  to  the  mountains:  And  let  him  that 

^Luke  1:71. 

*  Luke  1 :  74. 

®  Matthew  23:37. 

^Matthew  24:2. 

®Luke  21:20. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  39 


is  on  the  housetop  not  go  down  into  the  house,  neither  enter 
therein,  to  take  anything  out  of  his  house:  And  let  him  that  is 
in  the  field  not  turn  back  again  for  to  take  up  his  garment. 
But  woe  unto  them  that  are  with  child,  and  to  them  that  give 
suck  in  those  days!  And  pray  ye  that  your  flight  be  not  in  the 
winter.^ 

I  have  always  found  that  it  takes  an  enormous 
amount  of  learning  to  get  away  from  the  most  obvious 
and  simple  truth.  So  our  modern  theologians  are  ex¬ 
plaining  this  statement  eschatologically ;  that  is,  they  see 
in  it  a  prophecy  of  the  end  of  the  world.  If  it  refers  to 
the  end  of  the  world  what  difference  does  it  make 
whether  that  end  is  to  come  in  the  winter  or  in  the 
summer?  Such  obvious  misinterpretation  of  this  text 
indicates  a  complete  lack  of  understanding  of  other 
texts.  For  indeed  no  understanding  of  the  sayings  of 
Christ  is  at  all  possible  without  at  least  a  rudimentary 
insight  into  the  historical  background. 

If  we  do  not  have  before  us  the  clear  perspective  of 
events  which  are  inevitably  coming  unless  the  nation 
change  its  mind,  how  can  we  understand  the  following 
passage: 

There  were  present  at  that  season  some  that  told  him  of  the 
Galileans,  whose  blood  Pilate  had  mingled  with  their  sacrifices. 
And  Jesus  answering  said  unto  them.  Suppose  ye  that  these  Gali¬ 
leans  were  sinners  above  all  the  Galileans,  because  they  suffered 
such  things?  I  tell  you.  Nay;  but,  except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all 
likewise  perish.^ 

Generally  speaking,  repentance,  the  Greek  fieravoLa, 
a  change  of  mind,  has  to  be  and  can  only  be  individual, 

^Mark  13:14-18. 

®Luke  13:1-3. 


40  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

personal.  Yet  it  is  not  with  an  individual,  but  with  a 
national  situation  that  Jesus  was  here  clearly  dealing. 
The  Galilean  patriots  whom  Pilate  had  slain  were 
not  sinners  above  all  sinners ;  they  were  average  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  nation  as  a  whole.  They  were  a  good 
sample  and  so  was  their  fate.  They  perished,  and 
the  entire  nation  will  perish  if  its  mind  is  not  changed. 

It  is  true  that  Christ’s  clear  insight  was  not  shared 
by  his  contemporaries.  The  populace  could  not  see 
where  their  Pharisee  and  Zealot  leaders  were  leading 
them  and  v/hat  fate  they  were  preparing  for  them¬ 
selves.  The  greater  was  the  sorrow  of  Jesus;  for 
perdition  was  in  full  sight  yet  hidden  from  their  eyes. 

And  when  he  was  come  near,  he  beheld  the  city,  and  wept  over 
it.  Saying,  If  thou  hadst  known,  even  thou,  at  least  in  this  thy 
day,  the  things  which  belong  unto  thy  peace!  but  now  they  are 
hid  from  thine  eyes.  For  the  da3^s  shall  come  upon  thee,  that 
thine  enemies  shall  cast  a  trench  about  thee,  and  compass  thee 
round,  and  keep  thee  in  on  every  side,  and  they  shall  lay  thee  even 
with  the  ground,  and  thy  children  within  thee;  and  they  shall  not 
leave  in  thee  one  stone  upon  another;  because  thou  knowest  not 
the  time  of  thy  visitation.’^ 

Such  texts  not  only  invite  examination  of  the  con¬ 
crete  historical  background;  they  actually  supply, 
though  in  a  fragmentary  way,  the  very  incidents  of  the 
historical  situation.  Does  not  the  fourth  gospel  give 
us  in  nuce  a  complete  insight  into  the  entire  situation  by 
telling  us  what  Caiaphas  and  the  chief  priests  thought? 
“If  we  let  him  thus  alone,  all  men  will  believe  on  him: 
and  the  Romans  shall  come  and  take  away  both  our 
place  and  nation.”  ^  So  they  decided  that  it  is  expedi- 

^Luke  19:41-44. 

^  John  11:48. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  4 1 

ent  “that  one  man  should  die  for  the  people,  and  that 
the  whole  nation  perish  not.”  ^ 

The  primary  concern  of  the  Pharisees  and  priests 
was  also  the  fate  of  the  nation.  The  Pharisees  could 
probably  have  overlooked  the  heresies  in  Christ’s  re¬ 
ligious  teachings,  as  they  overlooked  those  of  the  Sad- 
ducees,  who  denied  such  traditional  canons  as  the  im¬ 
mortality  of  the  soul.  The  great  and  fundamental 
cleavage  was  constituted  by  Christ’s  non-resistance  to 
Rome.  Of  course  they  could  not  use  that  as  an  ac¬ 
cusation  when  they  were  seeking  his  condemnation  at 
the  hands  of  a  Roman  procurator,  and  they  had  to 
invent  some  other  charges. 

Even  the  Roman  procurator  seems  to  have  had  an 
insight  into  the  situation,  for  he  exerted  himself  to 
save  Christ.  According  to  the  account  in  Luke,  Herod, 
too,  whose  rule  was  not  of  the  gentlest,  found  also  no 
fault  with  Christ.  For  while  neither  of  them  of 
course  understood  Christ,  they  did  understand  that 
he  was  against  rebellion. 

And  Pilate,  when  he  had  called  together  the  chief  priests  and 
the  rulers  and  the  people,  said  unto  them.  Ye  have  brought  this 
man  unto  me,  as  one  that  perverteth  the  people:  and  behold,  I, 
having  examined  him  before  you,  have  found  no  fault  in  this  man 
touching  those  things  whereof  ye  accuse  him:  No,  nor  yet 
Herod:  for  I  sent  you  to  him;  and  lo,  nothing  worthy  of  death 
is  done  unto  him.^ 

But  Pilate  could  not  persuade  them,  and  because  of 
the  tumult^  he  did  not  dare  resist  them.  In  so  tense 

‘John  11:50. 

*Luke  23:13-15. 

®  Matthew  27:24. 


42  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 


a  situation  he  feared  to  provoke  an  outbreak  of  the 
rebellion. 

Pilate  offered  to  release  Jesus  because  of  the  Pass- 
over  feast.  It  was  the  exercise  of  a  customary  preroga¬ 
tive. 

And  they  cried  out  all  at  once,  saying,  Away  with  this  man, 
and  release  unto  us  Barabbas:  (Who  for  a  certain  sedition  made 
in  the  city,  and  for  murder,  was  cast  into  prison.)  Pilate  there¬ 
fore,  willing  to  release  Jesus,  spake  again  to  them.  But  they 
cried,  saying.  Crucify  him,  crucify  him.^ 

Mark’s  information  about  Barabbas  is  perhaps  more 
specific. 

And  there  was  one  named  Barabbas,  which  lay  bound  with  them 
that  had  made  insurrection  with  him,  who  had  committed  murder 
in  the  insurrection.^ 

Thus  Christ  was  delivered  unto  his  enemies  and  the 
rebel  leader  Barabbas  was  released.  The  patriots  had 
won  the  day.  They  knew  not  what  they  were  doing, 
nor  realized  that  they  were  sealing  the  fate  of  their 
nation.  To  Jesus,  however,  it  was  quite  clear;  hence 
when  the  women  of  Jerusalem  followed  him  on  the 
way  to  Golgotha  bewailing  and  lamenting  him  he 
turned  to  them  and  said: 

Daughters  of  Jerusalem,  weep  not  for  me,  but  weep  for  your¬ 
selves,  and  for  your  children.  For,  behold,  the  days  are  coming, 
in  the  which  they  shall  say,  Blessed  are  the  barren,  and  the 
wombs  that  never  bare,  and  the  paps  which  never  gave  suck.  Then 
shall  they  begin  to  say  to  the  mountains,  Fall  on  us;  and  to  the 
hills,  Cover  us.^ 

‘Luke  23:18-21. 

^Mark  15:7.  ^ 

®Iuke  23:28-31. 


CHAPTER  VI 


The  vision  of  the  inevitable  consequences  of  the 
brewing  rebellion — was  it  Christ’s  unique  insight, 
shared  by  no  one?  Hardly  so.  Many  intellectuals 
probably  foresaw  and  feared  the  outcome,  but  they 
felt  powerless  against  the  national  passion.  Inter¬ 
esting  as  an  illustration  is  what  Josephus  tells  us  about 
himself. 

I  therefore  endeavored  to  put  a  stop  to  these  tumultuous  per¬ 
sons,  and  persuaded  them  to  change  their  minds;  and  laid  before 
their  eyes  against  whom  it  was  that  they  were  going  to  fight, 
and  told  them  that  they  were  inferior  to  the  Romans  not  only 
in  martial  skill,  but  also  in  good  fortune;  and  desired  them  not 
rashly,  and  after  the  most  foolish  manner,  to  bring  on  the  dan¬ 
gers  of  the  most  terrible  mischief  upon  their  country,  upon  their 
families,  and  upon  thejnselves.  And  this  I  said  with  vehement 
exhortation,  because  I  foresaw  that  the  end  of  such  a  war  would 
be  most  unfortunate  to  us.  But  I  could  not  persuade  them;  for 
the  madness  of  desperate  men  was  quite  too  hard  for  me.^ 

Of  course,  Josephus  realized  that  in  arguing  against 
the  rebellion  he  was  provoking  the  hostility  and 
vengeance  of  the  populace,  who  indeed  might  regard 
him  as  a  traitor. 

I  was  then  afraid,  lest  by  inculcating  these  things  so  often,  I 
should  incur  their  hatred  and  their  suspicions,  as  if  I  were  of 
our  enemy’s  party,  and  should  run  into  the  danger  of  being 
seized  by  them  and  slain.^ 

*  Josephus:  Life,  4. 

Life,  5. 


43 


44  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 


We  quote  Josephus  here  not  as  an  individual,  but 
as  a  representative  of  a  type,  to  clarify  to  ourselves 
the  attitude  of  Jesus.  For  on  the  surface  may  it  not 
seem  that  Jesus  held  the  same  view  as  Josephus? 
Jesus,  of  course,  opposed  resistance  to  Rome.  Hence 
does  it  not  seem  that  they  were  in  agreement  toward 
the  all-absorbing  problem  of  the  time?  It  may  seem 
so,  but  it  is  not  true.  If  it  were  true,  nothing  would 
have  happened.  Nothing  happened  when  Josephus 
was  speaking  or  writing.  His  writings  are  a  matter 
of  indifference  to  us  and  of  no  consequence.  If  Jesus 
had  been  thinking  like  Josephus  there  would  have 
been  no  teachings  of  Jesus. 

Those  who  favored  non-resistance  to  Rome  could 
be  divided  into  two  main  types.  One  type  welcomed 
and  aspired  to  the  universal  Roman  civilization.  Com¬ 
plete  assimilation,  Greco-Roman  culture  was  their 
ideal.  Jewish  national  exclusiveness  to  them  was  noth¬ 
ing  but  provincial  backwardness.  They  were  an  in¬ 
evitable  upper-class  provincial  phenomenon  In  the  uni¬ 
versalization  of  Rome  and  the  Hellenizatlon  of  the 
ancient  world.  To  be  a  gentleman  meant  to  them  to 
be  a  Roman.  In  their  hearts  they  accepted  Rome. 
Their  attitude  towards  religion  was,  of  course,  purely 
formal.  There  was,  therefore,  no  occasion  for  any 
struggle  whatsoever.  Such  a  type  could,  of  course, 
be  neither  numerous  nor  Influential,  but  It  undoubtedly 
existed.  Rome  could  not  expand  politically  without 
universalizing  Its  own  civilization,  and  such  assimila¬ 
tion  naturally  appealed  first  of  all  to  the  upper  class. 

The  other  type  of  non-resistant  was  undoubtedly 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  45 

numerous  and  significant.  These  were  men  who  knew 
enough  about  the  world  at  large  to  see  clearly  what 
resistance  to  Rome  implied  and  foreboded.  They  knew 
that  resistance  was  a  physical  impossibility  and  only 
invited  complete  destruction  and  devastation.  They 
did  not  love  Rome  because  they  could  not  light;  they 
hated  her  the  more.  Their  non-resistance  was  with 
a  glowing  eye  and  a  heart  full  of  hate,  but  with  an 
arm  that  did  not  dare  to  strike.  It  was  a  prudent  and 
practical  attitude  enough,  but  under  the  given  circum¬ 
stances  it  could  not  stem  the  tide.  Sooner  or  later 
it  was  certain  to  be  swept  away  by  the  tide  of  active 
resistance. 

It  could  not  stem  the  tide  of  brave,  exalted  re¬ 
sistance;  it  could  not  still  the  storm  and  allay  the 
rising  waves,  because  inwardly  it  shared  their  fury.  It 
had  no  remedy  against  war,  for  it  was  itself  latent 
war,  counselling  prudence.  Prudence — is  it  really 
so  prudent?  Expediency — is  it  really  so  practical? 
Was  it  a  livable  life  that  prudence  and  expediency  were 
dictating?  They  were  counselling  and  preparing  a 
life  of  outward  submission  and  inward  rage,  a  cring¬ 
ing  life  of  stinging  defeat  with  an  inevitable  outbreak 
at  the  end,  when  the  accumulated  burden  of  resent¬ 
ment  should  become  unbearable. 

It  was  all  what  we  call  very  natural ;  in  other  words 
the  solutions  and  alternatives,  whether  of  rebellion  or 
submission,  were  of  the  kind  that  float  on  the  surface, 
that  are  obvious.  They  were  in  complete  conformity 
with  the  age-long  popular  way  of  thinking  and  feeling. 
They  offered  but  a  stereotyped  choice,  and  neither  alter- 


46  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

native  contained  a  single  new  reaction,  whether  of 
thought  or  of  feeling.  These  reactions,  these  ideas 
were  so  different  from  those  which  Jesus  taught,  that 
to  teach  as  he  did,  Jesus  must  have  had  quite  differ¬ 
ent  inner  reactions  and  experiences.  Differing  re¬ 
actions,  differing  experiences,  differing  thoughts  we 
reach  and  obtain  only  in  a  life  that  differs  from  the 
ordinary  ease  with  its  easy  conclusions;  in  other  words, 
in  a  life  of  inner  struggle.  Only  in  struggle  life  lifts 
itself  out  from  the  inherited  and  habitual  grooves  of 
feeling  and  of  thought.  In  this  struggle  of  Jesus’  life, 
extraordinary  insights  and  unique  discoveries  were 
reached,  which  in  a  fragmentary  way  are  revealed  to 
us  In  the  gospels. 

The  problem  that  led  to  that  inner  struggle  was 
neither  secret  nor  precious;  it  was  shouted  from  the 
housetops.  But  Jesus’  solution,  unlike  the  solution 
of  Josephus,  was  unique.  Historically  considered,  the 
problem  was  very  local.  Even  from  a  religious  point 
of  view  it  was  a  provincial  problem;  yet  Jesus’  solu¬ 
tion  became  the  most  universal  achievement  in  the  an¬ 
nals  of  mankind. 

What  the  problem  was  historically  speaking  we 
know.  But  how  does  it  present  itself  to  an  individual? 
It  presents  itself  in  the  form  of  alternatives.  I  can 
not  help  feeling  that  the  temptations  of  Jesus  are  prob¬ 
ably  parables  of  alternatives,  of  political  and  religious 
choices.  Under  this  interpretation  all  the  common 
popular  solutions  looked  to  Jesus  like  temptations  of 
the  Devil. 

One  solution  could  be  expressed  something  like  this : 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  47 


Here  Is  the  holy  city;  here  is  the  temple  of  God; 
and  here  are  God’s  chosen  people — His  very  own. 
Can  God  allow  them  to  perish  ?  Certainly  not.  Hence 
even  the  combat  with  the  entire  world,  whose  name 
is  Rome,  can  not  end  but  with  the  victory  of  God’s 
own  and  only  people. 

Cast  thyself  down:  for  it  is  written,  He  shall  give  his  angels 
charge  concerning  thee:  and  in  their  hands  they  shall  bear  thee 
up,  lest  at  any  time  thou  dash  thy  foot  against  a  stone.  Jesus 
said  unto  him  .  .  .  Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy  God.^ 

Jesus  did  not  accept  the  Zealot  nationalist  solution. 
There  was,  of  course,  an  alternative  in  exactly  the  op¬ 
posite  direction:  to  let  the  Roman  civilization  super¬ 
sede  Judaism.  Let  the  Jews  frankly  accept  Rome 
and  its  culture,  let  them  become  Romans;  then  indeed 
the  entire  world  will  be  theirs,  and  the  glory  of  the 
Romans  will  be  theirs  as  well. 

Again,  the  devil  taketh  him  up  into  an  exceeding  high  mountain, 
and  sheweth  him  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  and  the  glory 
of  them;  and  saith  unto  him.  All  these  things  will  I  give  thee, 
if  thou  wilt  fall  down  and  worship  me.  Then  Jesus  saith  unto 
him.  Get  thee  hence,  Satan:  for  it  is  written.  Thou  shalt  wor¬ 
ship  the  Lord  thy  God  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve.^ 

Between  these  two  extreme  solutions  were,  of  course, 
many  intermediary  positions,  chief  among  them  the 
one  that  had  no  other  aspiration  than  to  live,  and  to 
live  by  bread  alone.  Such  a  solution  neither  sought 
nor  required  any  religious  sanction.  But  Jesus  did. 

Jesus  was  against  resistance  to  Rome;  but  did  he 
teach  that  it  is  expedient  to  submit,  even  with  hatred 
in  one’s  heart?  Or  did  he  teach: 

‘Matthew 


^Matthew  4:8-10. 


48  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbor,  and  hate  thine  enemy.  But  I  say  unto  you,  love  your 
enemies,  bless  them  that  curse  you,  do  good  to  them  that  hate 
you,  and  pray  for  them  which  despitefully  use  you  and  persecute 
you;  That  ye  may  be  the  children  of  your  Father  which  is 
in  heaven:  for  he  maketh  his  sun  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the 
good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust.^ 

Here  indeed  is  quite  a  different  solution  of  the  prob¬ 
lem,  a  solution  that  came  to  Jesus  on  fiery  wings  of 
exaltation. 

The  solution  of  every  problem  has  some  starting 
point.  The  starting  point  for  Jesus  was  clearly  the  all- 
absorbing  problem  of  the  time.  Jesus  originally  either 
resented  the  aggression  of  Rome,  or  he  did  not.  If  he 
did  not,  there  was  no  occasion  for  any  inner  exertion. 
If  he  did  resent,  if  he  felt  bitterly  about  it,  what  was 
he  to  do  with  himself  and  his  resentment  in  this  crisis? 
How  could  a  proud  spirit  justify  non-resistance  to 
•  Rome?  A  proud  spirit  could  not.  But  when  the  proud 
spirit  exhausted  itself  in  the  struggle,  came  humility 
and  acceptance,  and  with  it  exaltation  embracing  heaven 
and  earth.  The  veil  had  fallen  from  the  eyes,  the 
simple  meaning  of  the  hidden  things  was  revealed,  and 
a  new  insight  was  won.  With  the  certainty  that  only 
inner  experience  gives,  Jesus  could  now  show  the  way 
to  the  lost  sheep  of  Israel. 

Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I 
will  give  you  rest.  Take  my  yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  me;  for 
I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart;  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto  your 
souls.  For  my  yoke  is  easy  and  my  burden  is  light.^ 

^Matthew  5:43-45. 

‘Matthew  11:28-30. 


CHAPTER  VII 


Several  years  before  the  birth  of  Christ  the  Jews 
petitioned  Rome  for  annexation  to  the  Roman  province 
of  Syria,  which  petition  Rome  at  that  time  rejected. 
The  petitioners  preferred  to  lose  their  quasi  political 
independence  under  a  Herodian  prince  for  the  sake 
of  maintaining  their  religious  traditions,  for  the  sake 
of  securing  a  cultural  home-rule  under  a  Roman  proc¬ 
urator.  The  fifty  Jewish  ambassadors  and  the  eight 
thousand  Jews  in  the  city  of  Rome  who  petitioned  the 
Emperor  were  meeting  a  practical  situation.  This 
situation  forced  them  to  discount  political  inde¬ 
pendence  altogether,  and  hence  all  that  was  left  to 
save  and  safeguard  was  what  had  maintained  them  as 
a  cultural  entity  throughout  the  ages — the  traditional 
faith  of  their  fathers. 

A  generation  passed,  and  a  similar  problem,  a  simi¬ 
lar  alternative  presented  itself  to  Jesus;  similar,  but 
not  identical,  for  the  fullness  of  time  was  at  hand;  and 
on  a  wide  and  crowded  road  the  children  of  Israel 
were  rushing  headlong  toward  their  own  perdition. 
The  loud  nationalist  call  to  rebellion,  the  fervent  hope 
for  a  Messiah,  God’s  anointed  leader  and  the  re¬ 
deemer  of  Israel,  stirred  the  deepest  emotions  that 
human  breasts  could  hold.  Here  was  not  a  time  for 
greater  prudence,  the  time  had  come  for  the  greater 
passions. 


49 


50  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 


When  Christ  in  ecstatic  humility  accepted  submis¬ 
sion  to  Rome,  with  that  acceptance  went  as  compensa¬ 
tion  the  highest  conceivable  type  of  national  consola¬ 
tion.  Of  course,  it  was  not  a  material  consolation  for 
which  the  multitudes  were  looking,  the  great  consola¬ 
tion  was  of  a  spiritual  nature.  The  essence  of  this 
consolation  was  not  wholly  a  stranger  in  the  ideological 
literature  of  the  nation.  In  the  non-canonic  literature 
of  the  time  one  finds  many  intimations  of  the  universal 
mission  of  Zion;  and  in  the  canonic  scriptures  the 
noblest  expression  of  this  Idea  in  the  famous  lines 
of  Isaiah: 

And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  that  the  mountain 
of  the  Lord’s  house  shall  be  established  in  the  top  of  the  moun¬ 
tains,  and  shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills;  and  all  nations  shall 
flow  unto  it.  And  many  people  shall  go  and  say,  Come  ye,  and 
let  us  go  up  to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  to  the  house  of  the  God 
of  Jacob;  and  he  will  teach  us  of  his  ways,  and  we  will  walk  in  his 
paths:  for  out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the  law,  and  the  word  of  the 
Lord  from  Jerusalem.  And  he  shall  judge  among  the  nations, 
and  shall  rebuke  many  people;  and  they  shall  beat  their  swords 
into  plowshares,  and  their  spears  into  pruninghooks :  nation  shall 
not  lift  up  sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any 
more.^ 

Of  course,  Isaiah’s  Zion  is  judging,  Jesus’  Zion  is 
saving.  Still  in  Isaiah  is  an  indication  of  Christ’s  con¬ 
solation  for  the  children  of  Israel.  Though  they 
’  were  losing  their  political  independence,  how  trifling 
it  is  in  the  light  of  their  universal  calling.  They  were 
Indeed  to  be  God’s  chosen  people,  God’s  light  in  a 
world  of  darkness;  “for  salvation  is  of  the  Jews.”  ^ 

^Isaiah  2:3-4. 

*John  4:22. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  5 1 

Now  let  US  turn  to  the  gospels,  to  the  opening  pas¬ 
sage  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  consider  it  not 
from  a  religious  but  from  a  historical  viewpoint.  It 
begins  with  blessings  upon  the  humble:  “Blessed  are 
the  poor  in  spirit;  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
Blessed  are  they  that  mourn:”  (I  dare  say  one  mourns 
the  loss  of  one’s  national  independence)  “for  they 
shall  be  comforted.  Blessed  are  the  meek:  for  they 
shall  inherit  the  earth.”  ^  Of  course,  humility,  mourn¬ 
ing  (which  means  accepting  the  will  of  God  as  Job 
did;  the  Jews  still  in  personal  mourning  recite  the  book 
of  Job)  meekness,  hungering  and  thirsting  after 
righteousness,  are  all  spiritual  terms;  and  to  inherit 
the  earth  means  but  a  spiritual  inheritance.  Therein  is 
the  consolation.  This  is  further  clarified  in  the  passage 
beginning,  “Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth.”  Clearly  it 
is  not  addressed  to  the  world  at  large,  for  then  there 
would  have  been  no  earth  left,  only  salt.  It  might 
have  been  said  in  other  words.  You  are  the  chosen 
people,  but  for  what  were  you  chosen?  Chosen  to 
carry  to  the  world  a  spiritual  message.  If  you  have 
no  spiritual  message  for  the  world  what  are  you  good 
for? 

But  if  the  salt  have  lost  his  savor,  wherewith  shall  it  [the 
earth]  be  salted?  It  is  thenceforth  good  for  nothing,  but  to  be 
cast  out,  and  to  be  trodden  under  foot  of  men.^ 

The  same  idea  only  with  different  imagery  is  carried 
out  in  the  following  verses: 

Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world.  A  city  that  is  set  on  an  hill  can¬ 
not  be  hid.  Neither  do  men  light  a  candle,  and  put  it  under  a 

*  Matthew  5:3-5. 

*  Matthew  5:13. 


52  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 


bu:hel,  but  on  a  candlestick;  and  it  giveth  light  unto  all  that  are 
in  the  house.  Let  your  light  so  shine  before  men,  that  they  may 
see  your  good  works,  and  glorify  your  Father  which  is  in 
heaven.^ 

Christ  says  your  Father,  not  their  father,  because  he 
is  addressing  the  chosen  people  as  the  children  of  God, 
who  have  a  spiritual  mission  to  perform. 

So  far  as  the  law  and  prophets  are  concerned  there 
is  no  infringement  upon  them  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  It  was  not  less  piety  or  less  righteousness  that 
Jesus  preached. 

Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law,  or  the  prophets: 
I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill.^ 

Why  then  do  we  find  in  the  Beatitudes  this  passage? 

Blessed  are  they  which  are  persecuted  for  righteousness’  sake; 
for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Blessed  are  ye,  when  men 
shall  revile  you,  and  persecute  you,  and  shall  say  all  manner  of 
evil  against  you  falsely,  for  my  sake.^ 

Are  the  public  hatred  and  persecution  here  referred 
to  due  to  contemporary  religious  bigotry,  religious 
intolerance,  which  could  not  listen  to  a  more  spiritual 
interpretation  without  violence?  Were  the  people  and 
their  leaders  so  intolerant  of  greater  religious  fervor 
or  greater  liberalism  than  their  own  little  minds  by 
chance  were  capable  of?  What  little  we  know  about 
actual  conditions  and  circumstances  of  the  time  would 
hardly  support  such  a  view.  The  circumstances  forced 
a  very  unusual  degree  of  religious  toleration. 

First  of  all,  the  Sadducees  and  Pharisees  had  to 
learn  to  get  along  and  worship  in  the  same  temple. 

‘Matthew  5:14-16. 

‘Matthew  5:17. 

‘Matthew  5:10-11. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

Secondly,  nobody  seemed  to  disturb  the  “sinners,” 
that  is,  the  outright  and  outspoken  religious  liberals. 
The  differences  between  the  Sadducees  and  the  Phari¬ 
sees  must  have  been  tremendous.  We  are  told  that 
the  Talmud  places  the  Sadducees  on  a  level  with  the 
Samaritans.^  The  Sadducees  did  not  accept  the  rab¬ 
binic  traditional  interpretations  of  the  Bible.  The 
Pharisees,  on  the  other  hand,  regarded  it  as  “more 
culpable  to  teach  contrary  to  the  precepts  of  the  scribes 
than  contrary  to  the  Torah  itself.”  ^  Still  more  drastic 
is  the  difference  between  the  sects  in  their  attitude 
toward  immortality.  The  idea  of  resurrection  or  im¬ 
mortality  of  the  soul  was  completely  rejected  by  the 
Sadducees.  Great  as  were  their  differences  of  view¬ 
point,  these  varying  sects  did  not  persecute  each  other. 

Why  then  should  Jesus  assume  that  his  followers 
will  be  reviled  and  persecuted?  Is  it  because  of  the 
Christhood  of  Jesus?  But  did  not  his  own  people  in 
Nazareth  try  to  kill  him  before  he  acknowledged  his 
Christhood?  One  does  not  need  to  look  very  far  to 
find  the  reason  for  the  antagonism  to  Jesus.  Was  it 
not  he  who  in  the  midst  of  the  brewing  rebellion  was 
teaching : 

That  ye  resist  not  evil:  but  whosoever  shall  smite  thee  on  thy 
right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also.^ 

^  Nidda  IV,  2.  “The  daughters  of  the  Zaddukim  are,  if  they  walk 
in  the  ways  of  their  fathers,  equal  to  Samaritan  women.  If  they  walk 
openly  in  the  ways  of  Israel,  they  are  equal  to  Israelitish  women.  R. 
Joses  says:  They  are  looked  upon  as  Israelitish  women,  unless  it  is 
proved  that  they  walk  in  the  ways  of  their  fathers.” — Quoted  in 
Schiirer’s  History  of  the  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Second  Division,  v.  2  (English  translation),  p.  8. 

*  Sanhedrin  11,  3. — Schiirer,  Ibid.,  p,  12. 

“Matthew  5:39. 


54  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

It  was  Jesus  who  was  teaching: 

But  I  say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies,  bless  them  that  curse 
you,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you,  and  pray  for  them  which 
despitefully  use  you,  and  persecute  youJ 

Under  the  circumstances,  therefore,  those  who  un¬ 
derstood  and  followed  Jesus  were  certain  of  meeting 
violent  antagonism  from  a  people  that  was  on  the 
eve  of  rebellion  and  disaster.  Political  passions  were, 
of  course,  clothed  in  traditional  religious  terms.  Mes¬ 
sianic  hopes  in  no  wise  changed  the  tribal  traditional 
morality  of  the  people:  such  hopes  rather  enhanced 
it.  What  then  could  save  the  people?  Only  that 
great  spiritual  experience,  the  passionate  and  humble 
submission  to  the  will  of  God;  only  a  rebirth  in  spirit 
could  save  them  from  their  traditional  reactions.  With¬ 
out  this  new  glowing  spirit,  the  old  tribal  morality, 
the  standards  of  flesh  were  sure  to  prevail. 

Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he 
cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.^ 

The  Zealot  movement  as  such  was  of  relatively  re¬ 
cent  origin,  but  was  linked  to  the  most  ancient  tradi¬ 
tions  :  tribal  morality  and  religious  orthodoxy.  Ortho¬ 
doxy,  on  the  other  hand,  no  matter  how  genuinely  de¬ 
vout  and  pious  it  may  be,  is  in  its  very  nature  a  his¬ 
torical,  inherited,  traditional  formulation  and  observ¬ 
ance.  In  the  historical  moment  that  we  are  dealing 
with  only  a  religious  fervor  of  so  passionate  a  nature 
that  it  could  overcome  traditions  and  habits  and  all  the 
emotions  aroused  by  the  day,  only  such  fervor  could 

*  Matthew  s^4. 

®Jolin  3:3. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  JS 

save  the  people  from  perdition.  The  call  was,  there¬ 
fore,  for  a  greater  ruling  religious  passion,  a  passion  of 
which  clearly  not  everybody  was  capable.  Only  a  part 
of  the  nation  at  best  could  free  itself  from  the  tradi¬ 
tional  nationalistic  reactions,  from  the  traditional  habits 
and  the  traditional  viewpoint. 

For  I  am  come  to  set  a  man  at  variance  against  his  father,  and 
the  daughter  against  her  mother,  and  the  daughter  in  law  against 
her  mother  in  law.  And  a  man’s  foes  shall  be  they  of  his  own 
household.^ 

Did  the  Zealots  ever  try  to  save  their  lives?  For  the 
God  of  their  fathers  and  the  freedom  of  their  country 
they  would  unflinchingly  sacrifice  not  only  their  own 
lives,  but  the  lives  of  all  who  were  dear  to  them.  What 
doubt  could  there  be  how  they  were  bound  to  view  the 
teaching  of  Christ  even  if  their  own  brother,  their 
own  child  should  profess  it? 

And  the  brother  shall  deliver  up  the  brother  to  death,  and  the 
father  the  child;  and  the  children  shall  rise  up  against  their 
parents,  and  cause  them  to  be  put  to  death.^ 

He  to  whom  the  ties  of  life,  the  ties  of  old  were  too 
strong — he  really  could  not  be  Jesus’  disciple.  Hence 
the  extraordinary  text: 

If  any  man  come  to  me,  and  hate  not  his  father,  and  mother, 
and  wife,  and  children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea,  and  his  own 
life  also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple.® 

It  was  the  call  for  a  religious  revival.  The  very 
call  for  repentance  was  nothing  else.  Love  God,  your 
Father,  with  all  your  heart  and  all  your  soul.  Submit 

*  Matthew  10:35-36. 

’Matthew  10:21. 

°Luke  14:26. 


56  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

gladly  to  His  will.  Pray  that  not  your  will  but  His 
be  done  here  on  earth  as  in  heaven.  That  is  all.  This 
simple  call  for  a  spiritual  revival  was,  however,  offen¬ 
sive  to  the  prevailing  political  sentiment  as  well  as  to 
organized  religion.  The  inevitable  situation  devel¬ 
oped.  All  worship  of  God  is  the  product  of  a  religious 
organization  with  its  teachings,  formulas,  observances, 
rituals,  and  traditions  of  the  elders.  An  organization, 
even  to  maintain  a  spiritual  entity,  is  in  its  very  nature 
a  physical,  material  instrument,  whose  object  is  to 
provide  the  many  with  at  least  a  minimum  of  spiritual¬ 
ity.  But  when  the  day  came  when  not  a  minimum  but 
a  maximum  of  possible  human  spirituality  was  called 
for,  then  indeed  all  the  traditional  trappings  of  the 
old  organization  conflicted  with  the  very  object  for 
which  they  had  been  created.  The  vehicles  of  a  re¬ 
ligion  were  too  heavy  to  permit  any  soaring  of  the 
spirit.  Yet  without  such  new  spiritual  content,  with¬ 
out  a  newly  felt  relationship  to  their  heavenly  father, 
without  a  universal  mission,  there  was  no  consola¬ 
tion  left  for  those  who  were  about  to  perish. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


Were  the  reactions  of  so  unique  a  religious  per¬ 
sonality  only  emotional,  or  did  Jesus  have  also  a  unique 
intellectual  insight?  There  is  no  question  in  my  mind 
that  Christ’s  deep  conviction  that  his  is  the  Way  and 
the  Truth  was  based  on  knowledge,  intellectual  knowl¬ 
edge,  scientific  knowledge  if  you  please.  Before  he 
felt  that  he  was  the  Redeemer,  he  knew  himself  to 
be  the  great  Discoverer.  Of  course,  this  is  a  modern 
mode  of  expression.  We  in  the  twentieth  century  talk  ' 
and  think  of  our  discoveries,  of  our  personal  achieve¬ 
ments;  but  to  Jesus  a  concrete  and  self-evident  intel¬ 
lectual  insight  was  a  gift  of  God.  Truth  could  only 
come  from  the  source  of  all  truth;  from  the  Father 
that  is  in  heaven. 

Is  the  complete  revelation  of  Christ’s  intellectual 
discoveries  in  the  gospels?  Could  it  be  there?  What 
are  the  gospels?  At  a  certain  time,  Christ  taught. 
Multitudes  were  gathered  around.  He  talked  to  them 
and  answered  questions.  His  sayings  on  these  occa¬ 
sions  were  remembered,  sometimes  possibly  verbally, 
sometimes  inaccurately.  At  different  times  after 
Christ,  these  sayings  were  gathered  and  edited.  To 
them  were  added  records  of  his  deeds,  of  his  healing, 
and  other  material  which  human  memory  and  tradition 
associated  with  Christ.  Christ  did  not  write  a  philo- 

57 


58  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

sophicai  treatise  about  his  knowledge  of  life  and  of 
God. 

Take  any  contemporary  example.  Let  us  assume 
that  a  great  Christian  philosopher  and  thinker,  for  ex¬ 
ample  Tolstoi,  on  the  basis  of  his  insight  into  what 
he  considers  truth,  is  trying  to  teach  his  fellow  men, 
as  Tolstoi  actually  did.  But  now  let  us  assume  that 
all  his  literary  and  religious  writings  were  not  written, 
but  that  the  only  records  left  to  us  were  his  pedagogical 
efforts,  his  little  tales  and  stories  for  the  peasants 
(which,  incidentally,  I  believe  have  never  been  trans¬ 
lated  out  of  Russian).  All  his  little  tales  for  the  edu¬ 
cation  and  spiritual  uplift  of  the  peasant  are  based  on 
a  rather  profound  and  complex  intellectual  insight. 
But  you  could  hardly  expect  to  find  dissertations  on 
philosophy  in  stories  written  for  the  poor,  ignorant 
peasants  of  Russia.  Yet  I  venture  to  say,  were  all 
the  works  of  Tolstoi  destroyed  and  only  these  simple 
folk-tales  left,  that  it  would  take  a  very  naive  scholar 
not  to  see  the  intellectual  and  religious  system  that  lies 
behind  these  tales  written  for  poor,  degraded  toilers 
of  the  soil. 

This  is  a  hypothetical  example.  We  are  actually  in¬ 
finitely  better  off  with  the  gospels.  True,  they  are 
largely  teachings  of  conduct.  True,  they  are  sayings 
addressed  to  men  and  women  from  whom  much  could 
not  be  expected  intellectually.  True,  there  is  no  at¬ 
tempt  at  a  philosophical  and  theological  dissertation; 
and  yet  there  was  no  need  for  followers  of  Christ  to 
go  to  an  Aristotle  for  philosophy.  For  a  greater  than 
Aristotle  is  there  in  the  very  sayings  as  they  have 
been  recorded  and  have  come  down  to  us  in  the  gospels. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  59 


What  is  a  philosopher?  A  lover  of  wisdom  it  means 
philologically.  And  what  is  wisdom?  A  relative  in¬ 
sight  into  truth,  very  relative  indeed.  What  then  shall 
we  call  Christ,  who  knew  that  he  had  not  a  relative 
but  an  absolute  insight?  Moreover,  use  all  your  mod¬ 
ern  little  scientific  standards,  and  you  cannot  get  away 
from  the  fact  that  Christ’s  insight  was  one  which  fu¬ 
ture  generations  may  rediscover  but  can  never  upset. 

Is  it,  therefore,  surprising  that  Christ  knew  quite 
well  that  he  was  wiser  than  Solomon? 

The  queen  of  the  south  shall  rise  up  in  the  judgment  with  this 
generation,  and  shall  condemn  it:  for  she  came  from  the  utter¬ 
most  parts  of  the  earth  to  hear  the  wisdom  of  Solomon;  and,  be¬ 
hold,  a  greater  than  Solomon  is  here.^ 

What  that  great  revelation  was  we  will  discuss  pres¬ 
ently.  And  it  is  for  this  insight  that  the  great  thanks¬ 
giving  was  rendered  by  Christ,  probably  approximately 
expressed  in  Luke: 

I  thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  thou 
has  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed 
them  unto  babes:  even  so.  Father;  for  so  it  seemed  good  in 
thy  sight.^  ...  For  I  tell  you,  that  many  prophets  and  kings  have 
desired  to  see  those  things  which  ye  see,  and  have  not  seen  them; 
and  to  hear  those  things  which  ye  hear,  and  have  not  heard  them.® 

It  is  because  back  of  all  the  teaching  was  an  in¬ 
sight  that  carried  with  it  complete  conviction  of  self- 
evident  truth  that  Jesus  taught  “as  one  having  author¬ 
ity,  and  not  as  the  scribes,”  ^  and  that  Jesus  could 
say  to  Nicodemus : 

*  Matthew  12:43. 

*Luke  10:  21. 

^Luke  10:24. 

^Matthew  7^9. 


60  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  We  speak  that  we  do  know, 
and  testify  that  we  have  seen ;  and  ye  receive  not  our  witness.^ 

What  is  it  that  Jesus  knew,  and  what  is  it  that  he 
had  seen  in  his  own  experience,  that  was  hidden  from 
the  kings  and  prophets?  It  is  condensed  in  a  very- 
brief  formula — The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  in  us.  This 
formulation,  however,  may  be  likened  to  the  summit 
of  a  mountain.  The  entire  broad  base,  the  vast  ex¬ 
panse  of  the  mountain’s  height  and  breadth  support 
and  lead  up  to  the  peak.  That  mountain  peak  is  but 
the  crowning  glory  of  the  mountain’s  vastness,  a  vast¬ 
ness  of  insight  based  on  experience.  Christ  was  speak¬ 
ing  of  what  he  knew,  of  what  he  had  seen.  What  did 
he  see,  what  did  he  experience?  All  that  he  experi¬ 
enced  we  do  not  know;  but  an  outline  here  and  there 
suggests  its  depth  and  indicates  its  bulk. 

From  our  historical  analysis  of  the  situation  it  be¬ 
comes  quite  evident  that  Jesus  had  to  resent  deeply 
the  loss  of  Jewish  national  independence  and  the  ag¬ 
gression  of  Rome.  Had  he  not  resented  it  there  would 
have  been  no  cause  for  his  fervent  humility  and  ac¬ 
ceptance.  The  fervor  and  ultimate  depth  of  the 
reconciliation  leave  under  the  given  historical  cir¬ 
cumstances  no  doubt  as  to  the  character  of  the  struggle 
which  preceded  it.  What  happened?  National  humili¬ 
ation  was  hurting  and  burning.  The  balm  for  that 
burning  humiliation  was  humility.  For  humility  can¬ 
not  be  humiliated.  Did  humility  change  the  outside 
world?  Not  in  the  least.  Only  an  inward  change  took 
place;  yet  that  inward  change  completely  altered  the 

‘John  3:11. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  '6 1 

so-called  facts  of  life  and  of  existence.  Thus  he  asked 
his  people  to  learn  from  him, 

For  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart:  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto 
your  souls.  For  my  yoke  is  easy,  and  my  burden  is  light.^ 

Parallel  with  the  great  emotion  was  the  intellectual 
insight,  that  what  counts  in  life  and  constitutes  life  is 
the  inner  reaction;  and  that  so-called  outward  facts  to 
which  we  have  no  inner  reactions  are  not  part  of  our 
life.  The  outward  world  is  our  world  only  in  so  far  as 
we  react  to  it.  Great  may  be  the  bulk  of  yonder  dis¬ 
tant  star;  and  in  the  scheme  of  the  universe  its  sig¬ 
nificance  may  be  greater  than  that  of  our  little  planet. 
But  in  our  life  its  bulk  and  gravity  count  for  little ;  for 
to  our  reactions  it  is  but  one  of  innumerable  little  stars 
which  in  no  wise  affect  our  lives.  The  same,  of  course, 
is  true  about  things  nearer  home.  In  so  far  as  we  do 
not  react  towards  some  phenomena  of  life  those  phe¬ 
nomena  do  not  exist  for  us.  It  is  our  reaction,  our  at¬ 
titude  that  so  far  as  we  are  concerned  gives  to  any 
phenomenon  its  place  and  meaning  in  our  life.  It  is, 
therefore,  with  the  inner  attitude  which  determines  our 
reactions  and  thus  regulates  all  the  events  of  our  lives 
that  Christ  was  dealing.  Christ  was  illustrating  this 
viewpoint  of  his  when  he  said: 

'  The  light  of  the  body  is  the  eye :  if  therefore  thine  eye  be  single, 
thy  whole  body  shall  be  full  of  light.  But  if  thine  eye  be  evil,  thy 
whole  body  shall  be  full  of  darkness.  If  therefore  the  light 
that  is  in  thee  be  darkness,  how  great  is  that  darkness 

You  can  see  that  Christ  is  fully  conscious  of  this 
principle,  and  expresses  it,  we  may  say  formulates  it 

‘Matthew  11:29-30. 

‘Matthew  6:22-23. 


62  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

intellectually,  in  connection  with  many  cures  which  are 
reported  in  the  gospels.  I  am  talking  about  the  mir¬ 
aculous  cures.  Christ’s  attitude  toward  miracles  in 
general  can  be  seen  in  the  so-called  teniiptations  in  the 
desert.  You  know  what  he  thought  of  the  Pharisees 
when  they  asked  him  for  a  sign  in  heaven.  He  con¬ 
sidered  a  generation  that  wants  a  sign  “a  wicked  and 
adulterous  generation”;  for,  of  course,  all  such  signs 
would  have  been  outward  forces  and  hence  meaning¬ 
less.  On  the  other  hand,  see  what  he  says  to  the  peo¬ 
ple  who  come  to  him  afflicted  with  bodily  ills.  We 
have  a  statement  in  Matthew: 

And  when  he  was  come  into  the  house,  the  blind  men  came  to 
him*:  and  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Believe  ye  that  I  am  able  to  do 
this?  They  said  unto  him,  Yea,  Lord.  Then  touched  he  their 
eyes,  saying,  According  to  your  faith  be  it  unto  you.^ 

Here  are  two  blind  men  praying  him  to  heal  them.  He 
asks  them  whether  they  think  he  can  do  so;  that  is, 
whether  they  have  such  inner  faith.  Then  all  that  he 
tells  them  is,  “According  to  your  faith  be  it  unto  you.” 
In  the  same  chapter  you  will  find  a  woman  who  in¬ 
sisted  on  touching  the  garment  of  Christ.  She  was 
cured  of  her  ailment.  She  did  not  even  ask  Christ  to 
cure  her,  but  she  had  an  inner  faith.  Christ  became 
aware  of  the  cure  only  post  facto.  He  tells  her,  “Thy 
faith  hath  made  thee  whole.”  ^  On  another  occa¬ 
sion  he  is  again  confronted  by  a  blind  man.  Again 
he  cures  him  and  says  to  him,  “Go  thy  way;  thy  faith 
hath  made  thee  whole. A  similar  formula  you  will 
find  in  other  cases.^ 

‘  Matthew  9 : 28-29. 

*  Matthew  9:22. 


*Mark  10:52. 
*Luke  17:19,  18^2. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  63 

We  also  know,  on  the  other  hand,  that  in  many 
cities,  like  Nazareth  and  other  places  where  people 
did  not  believe  in  Jesus,  he  could  not  perform  any 
miracles.  These  miracles,  therefore,  and  Christ  was 
quite  conscious  of  it,  were  acts  of  faith,  inner  acts  of 
the  afflicted.  True  enough,  the  children  of  Israel,  with¬ 
out  any  faith  in  him,  in  fact  with  doubt  instead  of  faith, 
wanted  from  him  some  miraculous  signs  in  heaven  to 
prove  his  Christhood.  Such  signs,  of  course,  were  not 
given. 

The  record  of  one  of  these  cures  links  the  cure  with 
forgiveness  of  sin,  which  is  intellectually  very  interest¬ 
ing  and  exciting.  It  shows  how  highly  systematized 
was  Christ’s  intellectual  insight.  It  cannot  be  a  mere 
chance  interpolation  of  the  editor  of  the  gospels.  Do 
you  remember  the  case  of  the  man  sick  of  the  palsy?  ^ 
This  man  had  faith  in  Christ  and  wanted  to  be  cured. 
Christ  says  to  him,  “Thy  sins  are  forgiven,”  and  the 
Pharisees  wonder  who  the  man  can  be  who  has  power 
to  forgive  sins.  But  Christ  identifies  his  healing  and 
his  forgiving  sins  in  the  statement,  “Whether  it  is 
easier,  to  say.  Thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee;  or  to  say. 
Rise  up  and  walk?”  He  identifies  the  two  acts  because 

ILuke  5:18-23.  And,  behold,  men  brought  in  a  bed  a  man  which 
was  taken  with  a  palsy:  and  they  sought  means  to  bring  him  in,  and  to 
lay  him  before  him.  And  when  they  could  not  find  by  what  way  they 
might  bring  him  in  because  of  the  multitude,  they  went  upon  the 
housetop,  and  let  him  down  through  the  tiling  with  his  couch  into 
the  midst  before  Jesus.  And  when  he  saw  their  faith,  he  said  unto 
him,  Man,  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee.  And  the  scribes  and  the 
Pharisees  began  to  reason,  saying.  Who  is  this  which  speaketh  blas¬ 
phemies?  Who  can  forgive  sins,  but  God  alone?  But  when  Jesus 
perceived  their  thoughts,  he  answering  said  unto  them.  What  reason 
ye  in  your  hearts?  Whether  it  is  easier,  to  say,  Thy  sins  be  for¬ 
given  thee;  or  to  say,  Rise  up  and  walk? 


64  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

both  the  cure  and  the  forgiveness  of  sin  are  made  pos¬ 
sible  by  the  inner  act  of  the  man  himself.  This  be¬ 
comes  even  more  evident  in  the  case  of  the  woman  who 
loved  much.  Here  are  the  verses : 

And  he  said  unto  her,  Thy  sins  are  forgiven.  And  they  that 
sat  at  meat  with  him  began  to  say  within  themselves,  Who  is 
this  that  forgiveth  sins  also?  And  he  said  to  the  woman,  Thy 
faith  hath  saved  thee ;  go  in  peace.’^ 

Now,  perhaps,  we  understand  why  Christ  tried  to 
explain  and  elucidate  his  own  acts  to  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  by  the  acts  of  John  the  Baptist. 

The  baptism  of  John,  whence  was  it?  from  heaven,  or  of  men? 
And  they  reasoned  with  themselves,  saying.  If  we  shall  say.  From 
heaven;  he  will  say  unto  us,  Why  did  ye  not  then  believe  him?^ 

The  three  synoptic  gospels  have  obviously  one  source 
for  the  record  of  this  conversation,  and  the  wording  of 
this  source  seems  rather  ambiguous.  It  looks  as  if 
Christ  refused  to  explain  to  the  Pharisees  the  char¬ 
acter  of  his  authority,  or  tried  to  put  the  Pharisees  in 
the  difficult  position  of  having  either  to  accept  or  deny 
the  authority  of  John.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  that  con¬ 
versation  is  marvellous  in  its  explicitness,  and  again  it 
shows  how  systematic  and  thought  out  is  the  insight 
of  Christ.  What  was  John  the  Baptist  doing?  He 
denied  that  he  was  Christ,  he  did  not  even  acknowledge 
himself  as  a  prophet.  He  called  himself  “a  voice  cry¬ 
ing  in  the  wilderness,”  and  described  his  mission  as 
to  make  the  path  straight  for  him  that  was  to  come. 
Yet  John  was  remitting  sins,  for  baptism  was  a  token 
of  the  remission  of  sins.  Now,  did  John  discriminate 
among  the  people  who  came  to  him  to  be  baptized? 

‘Luke  7:48-50.  *  Matthew  21:25. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  65 

Did  he  refuse  baptism  or  remission  of  sin  to  any  one  ? 
He  did  not.  If  they  repented  and  changed  their  at¬ 
titude  and  were  yearning  for  remission  of  their  sins, 
they  were  baptized.  A  change  of  mind  has  already 
taken  place;  in  their  repentance  was  the  remission  of 
their  sins.  Publicans  and  harlots  repented  and  their 
sins  were  forgiven,  the  baptism  was  but  a  token 
thereof. 

It  was  difficult  for  the  Pharisees  to  understand  It. 
Religion  to  them  was  largely  a  matter  of  outward  reg¬ 
ulation,  the  ultimate  significance  of  the  inner  attitude 
was  Incomprehensible  to  them.^^If  they  lived  up  to  all 
their  religious  regulations  they  had  consciousness  but 
of  their  piety  and  righteousness.  They  had  no  yearn¬ 
ing  for  spiritual  rebirth,  and  nothing  could  be  done 
for  them.  They  were  cleansing  and  polishing  the  out¬ 
side  of  the  cup. 

We  know  that  the  Jews  expected  God  to  send  their 
deliverer,  and  expected  that  with  him  a  new  rule  would 
begin,  by  a  ruler  sent  from  God  himself — the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  So  far,  therefore,  as  the  masses  are  con¬ 
cerned,  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  and  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  were  acts  of  God,  external  acts.  I  daresay 
they  would  have  expected  the  kingdom  to  be  inaugu¬ 
rated  by  signal  victories  over  the  Gentiles,  by  God’s 
judgment  and  chastisement  of  publicans  and  sinners, 
and  what  not. 

All  this  from  the  viewpoint  of  Christ’s  intellectual 
insight  was  futile  nonsense;  for  no  external  act  could 
solve  this  or  any  other  situation.  One  could  not  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  without  a  rebirth  in  spirit. 


66  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

It  was  only  through  a  rebirth  in  spirit  that  one  could 
enter  therein.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  was  but  an 
inner  change  in  us.  True  enough,  the  inner  spiritual 
change  may  be  gradual.  It  may  be  like  the  plant  that 
grows  from  a  tiny  mustard  seed.  It  may  be  like  a 
leaven,  which  raises  the  loaf  gradually.  But  the  leav¬ 
ening  and  the  growth  are  inner  acts,  not  outward 
manifestations.  Was  it  not  a  completely  different  con¬ 
cept  from  the  one  which  then  prevailed?  Indeed  it 
was.  And  that  is  why  Christ  told  the  Jews  that  they 
knew  neither  the  Father  nor  the  Son: 

Ye  neither  know  me  nor  my  Father:  if  ye  had  known  me,  ye 
should  have  known  my  Father  also.^ 

According  to  the  popular  conception,  Christ  was  to 
inaugurate  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Christ  was  to 
save  the  lost  sheep  of  Israel,  to  save  them  in  the  last 
moment  from  impending  destruction.  Now  Jesus 
knew  quite  well  that  his  way  was  not  simply  one  way 
to  save  the  children  of  Israel,  but  the  one  and  only 
way.  That  way  was  to  instruct  them  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  Thus  Christhood,  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
and  the  salvation  of  Israel  remain  linked  together,  as 
in  the  popular  concept.  But  in  Jesus’  concept  there 
appears  this  difference:  that  Christhood  and  the  salva¬ 
tion  of  Israel  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven  postulated 
the  spiritual  rebirth  of  the  people. 

And  when  he  was  demanded  of  the  Pharisees,  when  the  kingdom 
of  God  should  come,  he  answered  them  and  said,  The  kingdom 


*  John  8: 19. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  67 

of  God  cometh  not  with  observation:  Neither  shall  they  say,  Lo 
here!  or,  lo  there!  for,  behold,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  youJ 

But  the  Pharisees  could  neither  enter  into  that  king¬ 
dom  themselves  nor  could  they  suffer  others  to  enter 
therein. 

'Luke  17:20-21. 


CHAPTER  IX 


According  to  Josephus,  John  the  Baptist  was  put 
to  death  for  purely  political  reasons.  He  tells  us : 

Now  when  many  came  in  crowds  about  him,  for  they  were 
greatly  moved  by  hearing  his  words,  Herod,  who  feared  lest  the 
great  influence  John  had  over  the  people  might  put  it  into  his 
power  and  inclination  to  raise  a  rebellion  (for  they  seemed  ready 
to  do  anything  he  should  advise)  thought  it  best,  by  putting  him  to 
death,  to  prevent  any  mischief  he  might  cause;  and  not  bring  him¬ 
self  into  difficulties  by  sparing  a  man  who  might  make  him  repent 
of  it  when  it  should  be  too  late.^ 

John  the  Baptist,  therefore,  according  to  the  very 
plausible  testimony  of  Josephus,  was  put  to  death  for 
political  reasons.  What  did  John  the  Baptist  do?  He 
announced  the  coming  of  the  Messiah.  The  Messiah, 
in  the  general  and  universal  understanding  of  the  time, 
was  to  be  the  deliverer  of  the  Jews  from  Roman  op¬ 
pression.  Herod,  who  had  received  his  appointment 
as  tetrarch  of  Galilee  from  Rome,  was  but  an  admin¬ 
istrative  instrument  of  his  Roman  sovereign.  To  him 
the  coming  of  Christ  could  mean  nothing  but  rebellion 
against  Rome,  under  a  leadership  which  the  people 
would  acclaim  as  divine.  Whatever  may  have  been 
the  flavor  of  John’s  religious  and  moral  preachings,  to 
Herod  he  was  but  the  herald  of  a  revolution,  with 
great  moral  power  over  the  people,  who  came  to  him 
in  multitudes.  Since  the  fate  of  the  Herodians  was 

^Josephus:  Antiquities,  XVIII,  5,  2. 

68 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  69 

tied  up  with  the  power  of  Rome,  Herod  put  the  pre¬ 
cursor  of  what  looked  to  him  like  the  coming  revolu¬ 
tion,  to  death.  To  the  Jewish  populace,  the  Christ 
was  the  deliverer  who  was  to  come  to  deliver  them 
from  foreign  rule  and  oppression.  To  a  Herod  or  a 
Pilate,  or  any  Roman  administrative  agent,  the  Christ 
who  was  to  come  was  the  leader  of  the  expected  re¬ 
bellion.  For  what  looked  to  the  so-called  Jewish 
patriot  like  deliverance,  of  course,  meant  rebellion  to 
the  forces  of  Rome. 

John  was  put  to  death  by  Herod  for  announcing  the 
coming  of  the  Christ.  Yet  when  Pontius  Pilate  sent 
that  very  Christ  to  Herod,  Herod  did  not  put  him 
to  death,  but  sent  him  back  to  Pilate;  and  neither 
Pilate  nor  Herod  could  find  any  fault  with  him.  The 
Jews,  on  the  other  hand,  who  were  praying  so  fervently 
for  the  coming  of  the  Christ,  sought  from  Pilate 
Jesus’  execution  and  the  deliverance  of  the  rebel  leader, 
Barabbas. 

These  historical  episodes  throw  light  on  the  wide 
gulf  between  the  two  concepts  of  Christhood;  that  of 
the  populace,  and  that  of  Jesus.  The  concept  of  the 
populace  was  a  heavensent  king  of  the  house  of  David, 
with  a  supernatural  sword  in  his  hand,  ruling,  judging 
and  avenging.  Very  different  was  Jesus’  concept  of 
his  Christhood. 

A  very  large  number  of  the  plain  people  believed  In 
Jesus.  They  saw  before  them  a  personality  whose 
like  they  had  never  seen  before.  They  believed  him 
to  be  the  one  who  was  to  come;  that  Is,  the  Christ 
that  they  expected,  whose  functions  and  attributes 


70  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 


were  those  popularly  attributed  to  the  coming  Messiah. 
Even  Christ’s  own  disciple,  Simon  Peter,  who  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  gospels  first  acknowledged  him  to  be  the 
Christ,  even  he  seems  to  have  understood  Christhood 
in  quite  a  different  sense  from  that  of  Jesus,  and,  in 
all  probability,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  people. 
The  way  Christ  took  it  is  described: 

But  he  turned,  and  said  unto  Peter,  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan: 
thou  art  an  offense  unto  me:  for  thou  savorest  not  the  things  that 
be  of  God,  but  those  that  be  of  men.^ 

The  popular  interpretation  of  Christhood  and  the 
popular  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  are  also  indicated 
by  Jesus’  having  to  hide  himself  in  a  mountain  lest 
the  populace  should  by  force  make  him  king. 

When  Jesus  therefore  perceived  that  they  vrould  come  and  take 
him  by  force,  to  make  him  a  king,  he  departed  again  into  a  moun¬ 
tain  himself  alone.^ 

There  is  little  doubt  that  so  great  an  impression  was 
made  by  Jesus  upon  his  day  and  generation  that  had 
he  wanted  to  be  a  king  and  lead  his  people  as  the 
Messiah  they  expected  should  have  done,  he  would 
have  been  joyfully  acclaimed  throughout  Judea.  Yet 
Jesus  chose  and  had  to  choose  the  cross.  Why  did 
he  have  to  reject  the  throne?  Why  did  he  have  to 
choose  a  cross?  Why  did  he  have  to  change  the 
definite  meaning  that  so  concrete  a  word  as  Christ  or 
Messiah  had  in  his  time?  It  could  be  answered  by 
quoting  John : 

I  am  come  a  light  into  the  world,  that  whosoever  believeth  on 
me  should  not  abide  in  darkness.® 

*  Matthew  16:23. 

*  John  6: 15. 


“John  12:46. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  7 1 

This  Is  an  answer;  but  kt  me  give  one  less  subtle, 
more  concrete. 

It  has  been  indicated  in  the  foreword  to  this  study, 

I  believe,  that  our  attempt  here  is  neither  theological 
nor  philosophical,  but  an  attempt  at  historical  under¬ 
standing.  Understanding,  however,  is  not  a  vain 
repetition  of  many  words  and  enumeration  of  various 
parts  of  something.  It  is  an  understanding  of  the 
inner  cohesion  of  these  parts,  that  gives  them  an  entity 
and  intellectual  unity.  To  me  personally  it  seems 
childish  not  to  see  in  Christ’s  teachings  an  overwhelm¬ 
ing  intellectual  system.  The  towering  parts  that  are 
its  components  are  parts  of  the  same  system,  not  in¬ 
dependent  units.  The  truth  of  the  insight,  the  co¬ 
hesion  of  the  system  were  self-evident  to  Christ;  so 
much  so  that  he  knew  that  they  had  an  absolute  qual¬ 
ity;  that  is,  coming  from  God.  Because  of  the  sys¬ 
tematic  nature  of  the  insight,  the  conclusions  drawn 
were  inevitable  and  mandatory. 

Just  so  inevitable  was  a  revision  of  the  concept  of 
Christhood.  Had  all  the  popular  functions  of  Christ- 
hood  been  excluded  from  Jesus’  concept,  then  in¬ 
deed  Jesus  would  have  simply  brushed  away  the  en¬ 
tire  concept.  He  would  have  said,  “No,  I  am  not 
he  that  is  to  come,”  or  “He  will  come,”  or  he  would 
have  said,  “Indeed  he  never  will  come.”  But  the  - 
primary  and  elementary  function  of  the  Christ  that  was 
to  come  was  what?  The  saving  of  the  Jews,  was  it 
not?  Jesus  knew  quite  well  that  the  only  thing  that 
could  possibly  save  them  was  his  Insight,  as  expressed 
in  his  teachings.  He,  therefore,  completely  fulfilled 


72  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 


the  fundamental  meaning  of  Christhood.  No  one  but 
himself,  moreover,  could  possibly  fulfill  it.  That  he 
considered  it  his  primary  function  is  shown  in  the  way 
he  commanded  his  disciples  : 

These  twelve  Jesus  sent  forth,  and  commanded  them,  saying, 
Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into  any  city  of  the 
Samaritans  enter  ye  not:  But  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
house  of  Israel.^ 

While  he  was  instructing  his  people  into  the  king¬ 
dom  of  heaven,  leading  them  to  a  spiritual  rebirth, 
Jesus  nevertheless  kept  constantly  before  them  the 
-t  pragmatic  importance  of  his  teachings,  which  could 
save  them  from  imminent  destruction.  He  does  not 
hesitate  to  show  the  plain  people  that  the  very  political 
and  social  situation,  that  is,  the  times  in  which  they 
were  living,  demanded  from  them  a  changed  attitude 
of  mind  unless  they  were  to  perish;  though,  of  course, 
it  would  have  been  preferable  that  they  change  their 
attitude,  not  because  of  the  existing  political  situation, 
but  because  it  was  right  that  they  should.  So  for  in¬ 
stance  we  find  in  Luke  these  sayings : 

And  he  said  also  to  the  people,  When  ye  see  a  cloud  rise  out 
of  the  west,  straightway  ye  say,  There  cometh  a  shower;  and  so 
it  is.  And  when  ye  see  the  south  wind  blow,  ye  say.  There  will 
be  heat;  and  it  cometh  to  pass.  Ye  hypocrites,  ye  can  discern  the 
face  of  the  sky  and  of  the  earth;  but  how  is  it  that  ye  do  not 
discern  this  time?  Yea,  and  why  even  of  yourselves  judge  ye  not 
what  is  right  ?  ^ 

But  they  really  could  not  judge  what  was  right,  for 
their  minds  were  filled  with  the  conglomeration  of 

^Matthew  10:5-6. 

^luke  12:54-57. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  73 

popular  ideas  in  which  the  coming  of  Christ  and  his 
kingdom,  the  salvation  of  Israel,  the  tribute  to  Caesar, 
and  endless  other  religious  and  secular  ideas  of  the 
time  were  all  mixed  up  and  intertwined. 

The  popular  current  concepts  presented  a  curious 
mixture  of  things  religious  and  things  political,  of 
things  natural  and  supernatural.  They  were  products 
of  an  emotional  panic  which  was  hysterically  fusing 
and  confusing  things.  In  the  Messianic,  apocalyptic 
and  eschatological  literature  of  the  time  the  world  was 
to  come  to  an  end;  but  what  really  did  come  to  an  end 
in  that  literature  was  the  last  shred  of  thinking  ca¬ 
pacity  and  common  sense.  In  Christ,  on  the  other 
hand,  in  his  teachings,  his  ministry,  entirely  apart  from 
any  of  his  other  functions  or  qualities,  the  one  thing 
that  stands  out  monumentally  is  his  intellectual 
grandeur,  and  the  purity  and  unswerving  consistency 
of  its  simple  straight  lines.  The  continuation  of  a 
straight  line  excludes  doubt  as  to  its  direction.  The 
line  of  Jesus’  intellectual  insight  had  to  lead  to  a  re¬ 
casting  of  the  concept  of  Christhood,  no  matter  how 
widely  the  concept  he  arrived  at  might  vary  from  the 
confused  and  uncertain  one  which  prevailed. 

The  two  salient  points  common  and  fundamental  to 
all  prevailing  concepts  of  the  Messiah  were  the  salva¬ 
tion  of  Israel  and  the  inauguration  of  the  kingdom. 
Since  the  kingdom  could  only  be  within  the  souls  of 
men,  since  salvation  of  Israel  from  immediate  de¬ 
struction  was  dependent  on  the  humility  and  non- 
resistance  which  would  accompany  a  spiritual  rebirth, 
Jesus  knew  that  he  was  the  Christ,  and  that  any  other 


74  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

Christ  who  might  arise,  a  Christ  who  would  be  a 
popular  leader,  was  bound  to  be  a  false  Christ.  It 
was  equally  self-evident  that  the  Messiah  of  the  popu¬ 
lar  imagination,  the  man  on  horseback,  of  the  con¬ 
quering  hero  type,  could  accomplish  nothing  but  de¬ 
struction.  He  could  accomplish  nothing  because  the 
only  conquest  required  for  entrance  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  was  an  inner  conquest.  Even  if  material  con¬ 
flict  should  be  crowned  with  victory,  what  would  such 
victories  of  the  flesh  avail?  How  could  the  Messiah 
of  the  popular  imagination  lead  the  Jews  to  a  rebirth 
of  the  spirit,  and  to  the  gates  of  the  kingdom  that  is 
within  us  and  that  cometh  not  with  observation?  How 
could  men  possibly  enter  into  the  kingdom,  supposing 
some  external  changes  to  take  place,  if  they  themselves 
remained  unchanged?  But  if  our  entrance  into  the 
kingdom  is  entirely  a  matter  of  changing  our  own  at¬ 
titude,  of  our  own  rebirth,  what  else  could  Christ 
be  but  a  light  to  those  that  sit  in  darkness,  and  their 
minister? 

“Ye  know  that  they  which  are  accounted  to  rule  over  the 
Gentiles  exercise  lordship  over  them;  and  their  great  ones  exer¬ 
cise  authority  upon  them.  But  so  shall  it  not  be  among  you:  but 
whosoever  will  be  great  among  you,  shall  be  your  minister:  And 
whosoever  of  you  will  be  the  chiefest,  shall  be  servant  of  all. 
For  even  the  Son  of  man  came  nOt  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to 
minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many.’^ 

All  the  ideas  of  Jesus  were  correlated;  they  were 
closely  fitted  parts  of  one  great  intellectual  concept, 
and  all  of  the  same  spirit,  a  different  spirit  from  the  one 
prevailing. 

^Mark  10:42-45. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  75 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  many,  very  many  be¬ 
lieved  in  him;  but  how  many  understood  him?  Cer¬ 
tainly  very  few.  The  gospels  themselves  as  they  come 
to  us  testify  to  the  lack  of  understanding  even  among 
the  disciples.  So  we  are  told: 

And  they  understood  none  of  these  things:  and  this  saying  was 
hid  from  them,  neither  knew  they  the  things  which  were  spoken.^ 

The  great  trouble  was  that  Christ  was  teaching  an  in¬ 
sight,  preaching  ideas,  while  the  people  could  only 
understand  things.  So,  for  instance,  even  so  simple 
a  metaphor  as  “the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and  the 
leaven  of  Herod”  was  understood  literally  and  ma¬ 
terially. 

And  they  reasoned  among  themselves,  saying.  It  is  because  we 
have  no  bread.  And  when  Jesus  knew  it,  he  saith  unto  them.  Why 
reason  ye,  because  ye  have  no  bread?  perceive  ye  not  yet,  neither 
understand?  have  ye  your  heart  yet  hardened?  Having  eyes,  see 
ye  not?  and  having  ears,  hear  ye  not?  and  do  ye  not  remember?^ 

You  will  find  any  number  of  references  in  the  gospels 
to  this  lack  of  understanding.  Some  are  even  humor¬ 
ous;  for  Jesus,  of  course,  could  not  help  seeing  that 
they  were  hopelessly  mixing  his  teachings  with  the 
old  traditional  ideas. 

Therefore  every  scribe  which  is  instructed  unto  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  is  like  unto  a  man  that  is  a  householder,  which  bringeth 
forth  out  of  his  treasure  things  new  and  old.® 

The  scribes  had  difficulty  in  grasping  the  meaning 
of  Jesus’  message;  but  was  it  any  easier  for  those 
who  were  not  scribes?  To  illustrate  and  illuminate  his 

^Luke  18:34. 

^  Mark  8:16-18. 

“Matthew  13:52. 


76  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

teachings  Christ  used  parables,  but  they  did  not  help 
very  much. 

Therefore  speak  I  to  them  in  parables:  because  they  seeing  see 
not;  and  hearing  they  hear  not,  neither  do  they  understand.  And 
in  them  is  fulfilled  the  prophecy  of  Esaias,  which  saith,  By  hearing 
ye  shall  hear,  and  shall  not  understand;  and  seeing  ye  shall  see, 
and  shall  not  perceive:  For  this  people’s  heart  is  waxed  gross, 
and  their  ears  are  dull  of  hearing,  and  their  eyes  they  have  closed; 
lest  at  any  time  they  should  see  with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with 
their  ears,  and  should  understand  with  their  heart,  and  should  be 
converted,  and  I  should  heal  them.^ 

And  yet  there  is  no  doubt  that  multitudes  believed 
in  him,  and  that  faith  did  wonders  for  them.  The 
more  reason  is  it  for  us  to  ask  ourselves.  Why  was  not 
their  faith  abiding?  Why  was  it  that  the  multitudes 
who  greeted  him  with  “Hosanna,”  the  very  same,  per¬ 
haps,  cried  but  a  few  days  later,  “Crucify  him”  ?  Why 
was  it  that  Jesus  knew  that  he  must  be  rejected  by 
his  generation  and  suffer  many  things  in  Jerusalem? 
And  not  only  Jesus  knew  it,  but  his  brethren,  who  did 
not  believe  in  him,  taunted  him,  and  asked  him  why 
he  was  not  going  to  Jerusalem.  * 

Then  Jesus  said  unto  them,  My  time  is  not  yet  come:  but 
your  time  is  always  ready.  The  world  cannot  hate  you;  but  me 
it  hateth,  because  I  testify  of  it,  that  the  works  thereof  are  evil. 
Go  ye  up  unto  this  feast:  I  go  not  up  yet  unto  this  feast;  for 
my  time  is  not  yet  full  come.^ 

Let  us  try  to  confront  the  situation,  and  find  our¬ 
selves  in  it.  Jesus  might  have  been  followed  and 
grasped  in  one  of  two  ways :  first,  his  teachings  might 
have  been  understood,  believed  in,  and  followed  with 

'Matthew  13:13-15. 

“John  7:6-8, 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  77 

abiding  conviction  because  of  that  understanding.  Cer¬ 
tainly  he  laid  emphasis  on  understanding,  and  pointed 
out  that 

When  any  one  heareth  the  word  of  the  kingdom,  and  under- 
standeth  it  not,  then  cometh  the  wicked  one,  and  catchefh  away 
that  which  was  sown  in  his  heart.  This  is  he  which  received  seed 
by  the  wayside.^  .  .  .  But  he  that  received  seed  into  the  good 
ground  is  he  that  heareth  the  word,  and  understandeth  it;  which 
also  heareth  fruit,  and  bringeth  forth;  some  a  hundredfold,  some 
sixty,  some  thirty.^ 

The  alternative  possibility  is  that  the  teachings 
might  not  have  been  intellectually  understood,  but 
that  Jesus  might  have  been  felt  and  grasped  emo¬ 
tionally,  and  followed  because  of  the  people’s  faith 
in  him.  Have  we  any  definite  evidence  that  Christ’s 
unified  intellectual  insight  was  understood  and 
mentally  grasped?  After  nineteen  hundred  years  of 
all  kinds  of  theology,  philosophy  and  science,  we  can 
understand  it  to-day.  Whatever  one  may  think  of  our 
intellectual  achievements,  be  they  profound  or  not, 
it  is  fair,  I  believe,  to  say  that  we  at  least  can  grasp 
an  intellectual  insight  if  it  is  laid  before  us;  thus  sci¬ 
ence  and  philosophy  have  really  paved  the  way  to  an 
understanding  of  Christ.  But  I  frankly  fail  to  see  how 
in  Christ’s  generation,  in  Judea  and  by  the  shore  of 
Galilee,  there  could  be  many  who  would  understand 
him.  The  political  emotional  elements  in  the  situa¬ 
tion  would  also  have  worked  against  a  sympathetic 
understanding,  for  all  that  the  scribes  could  understand 
and  did  understand  was  that  if  men  should  truly  be- 

^  Matthew  13:19. 

■'Matthew  13:23. 


78  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

lieve  in  him,  then  “The  Romans  shall  come  and  take 
away  both  our  place  and  nation.”  ^  There  was  alto¬ 
gether  too  tremendous  a  difference  in  the  intellectual 
level ;  and  I  cannot  see  how  an  intellectual  understand¬ 
ing  of  Christ  was  at  all  possible. 

Quite  different  is  it  with  faith,  and  it  may  well  be 
observed  that  so-called  intellectual  understanding  does 
play  a  role  only  in  the  history  of  so-called  ideas;  that 
is,  understanding  plays  a  role  in  the  history  of  under¬ 
standing — a  trite  enough  observation.  It  plays  an  in¬ 
finitely  small  role  in  the  history  of  mankind.  Man¬ 
kind  and  understanding  are  two  different  things.  You 
perhaps  witness  from  time  to  time  great  commotions 
in  the  name  of  ideas.  It  was  so  in  the  past,  is  per¬ 
haps  so  in  the  present.  Do  not  think  for  a  moment 
that  it  is  understanding  of  the  ideas  which  moves  man¬ 
kind;  it  is  their  faith  in  the  ideas.  This  is  true  about 
the  so-called  masses,  it  is  true  about  so-called  intel¬ 
lectuals;  when  at  certain  times  numbers  of  persons 
call  themselves  positivists,  Kantians,  Hegelians,  Marx¬ 
ists,  all  you  will  find  there  is  sincere  and  really  power¬ 
ful  faith  in  the  concepts  of  Comte  or  Kant  or  Hegel 
or  Marx.  That  faith  is  clothed  (because  it  is  so 
scientific,  because  it  is  after  the  fall  of  Adam  and  no 
longer  in  a  state  of  innocence)  it  has  to  be  clothed  in 
phrases  and  excerpts- — rags  of  the  believers’  particu¬ 
lar  master.  So  it  is  with  faith;  and  as  it  is,  so  it  was, 
and  so  perhaps  it  will  be.  But  there  are  certain  funda¬ 
mental  conditions,  subject  not  to  faith  but  to  under¬ 
standing,  that  at  a  given  time  determine  the  general 

*John  11:48. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  79 

characteristics  of  a  prevailing  faith.  The  faith  that 
had  to  prevail  in  the  generation  of  Jesus  was  a  faith 
in  Christ,  their  Christ,  their  Messiah.  And  they  be¬ 
lieved  in  Jesus. 

But  here  was  a  fatal  tragedy  involved  in  that  very 
faith;  for  one  concept  was  the  concept  of  the  Messiah 
of  Jesus’  generation,  and  different,  as  we  pointed  out, 
was  Jesus’  concept  of  his  own  Christhood.  If  the 
insight  of  Jesus  could  have  been  intellectually  grasped, 
they  could  and  would  inevitably  have  come  to  that 
concept  of  Christhood  that  Jesus  taught.  But  the 
Messiah  was  too  definite  a  concept  of  faith  to  be 
modified  without  a  sign  in  heaven.  Multitudes  be¬ 
lieved  in  Jesus;  and  the  whole  of  Galilee  and  Judea 
would  have  been  swept  by  Jesus,  could  he  have  been 
the  king  and  the  Messiah  of  their  faith.  For  when¬ 
ever  they  believed  in  him,  they  believed  in  him  as  their 
Messiah,  their  anointed  king.  “Hosanna,  blessed  is 
the  king  of  Israel  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord.”  ^  They  believed  in  him,  but  they  believed 
in  him  with  their  faith,  not  with  his  faith.  How  could 
they  modify  so  deeply  ingrained  a  concept  of  faith, 
and  a  concept  of  deliverance  that  the  political  situation 
seemed  to  them  so  concretely  to  demand?  Where  in¬ 
tellectual  understanding  was  lacking,  nothing  short  of 
a  sign  in  heaven,  an  intervention  by  God  himself,  could 
modify  their  faith.  And  in  this  respect,  if  we  come 
to  think  of  it,  we  must  remember  that  even  the  faith 
of  the  early  Christian  community  after  the  death  of 
Jesus  was  based  first  upon  a  sign  in  heaven,  the  resur- 

*  John  la: 13. 


80  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

rection.  Nor  was  the  current  faith  in  the  Messiah 
so  drastically  changed,  for  he  was  to  come  again  and 
reign  in  glory.  Even  after  the  resurrection  the  “Acts” 
are  reporting  the  old  primary  concern: 

When  they  therefore  were  come  together,  they  asked  of  him, 
saying,  Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  again  the  kingdom 
to  Israel?  ^ 

Jesus  knew  that  he  had  to  be  rejected  by  his  gen¬ 
eration.  And  the  Pharisees  knew  just  how  to  shatter 
the  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  For  indeed  all  they 
had  to  ask  him  was  the  question  whether  it  were 
lawful  to  pay  tribute  to  Caesar.  The  Messiah  that 
was  to  deliver  the  children  of  Israel  from  the  Caesars 
and  all  oppression,  that  Messiah  could  not  command 
them  to  pay  the  tribute.  But  Jesus,  who  came  to  de¬ 
liver  them  from  themselves  and  from  their  imminent 
destruction,  of  course,  had  to  tell  them  to  recognize 
the  fact  that  on  their  tribute  money  were  the  name  and 
the  superscription  of  Caesar,  hence  to  render  unto 
Cssar  what  was  Caesar’s,  but  to  give  unto  God  what 
was  God’s. 

Jesus  had  to  be  rejected  by  his  generation,  and  he 
knew  it.  If  he  was  to  be  rejected  by  his  generation 
and  suffer  for  the  truth  to  which  he  came  to  bear  wit¬ 
ness,  then  indeed  he  could  not  save  the  lost  sheep  of 
Israel  from  their  imminent  destruction.  Rejected  by 
his  generation  and  not  understood  by  his  people,  of 
what  avail  was  his  instruction  into  the  kingdom? 
Will  not  the  people  to  whom  he  ministered  after  all 

‘  Acts  I ;  6. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  8 1 

be  the  very  last  to  enter  the  kingdom,  if  indeed  they 
are  to  enter  therein  at  all?  Will  not  his  very  disciples 
be  offended  and  deny  him,  when  he,  instead  of  reigning 
in  power,  is  apprehended  like  a  malefactor  and  suffers 
at  the  hands  of  his  enemies?  And  true  enough,  when 
he  was  apprehended  as  a  malefactor,  then  the  disciples 
forsook  him  and  fled.^  They  were  offended,  they  for¬ 
sook  him,  for  neither  was  his  kingdom  of  this  earth, 
nor  was  there  any  heavenly  intervention  in  his  behalf. 
If  there  had*been,  his  enemies  would  have  believed  in 
him  as  well.  Did  not  the  priests  and  scribes  say. 

Let  Christ  the  King  of  Israel  descend  now  from  the  cross,  that 
we  may  see  and  believe.^ 

Thus  Christ  had  to  experience  a  greater  passion  than 
the  physical  one. 

It  is  generally  said  that  human  passions  are  blind, 
blind  to  causes,  conditions,  consequences;  blind,  that 
is,  having  mo  insight  into  more  general  conditions  of 
existence.  And  because  it  is  so,  “If  the  blind  lead  the 
blind,  both  shall  fall  into  the  ditch.”  ^  On  the  other 
hand,  to  every  historical  moment,  transient  as  it  is, 
its  momentary  passions  are  by  far  more  absorbing  and 
•exciting  than  a  general  insight,  if  ever  so  true,  into  life. 
These  passions  of  the  moment  have  naturally  enough 
their  spokesmen.  More  universal  viewpoints  may  also 
have  their  spokesmen.  But  in  a  conflict  between  the 
moment  and  eternity,  which  is  it  that  is  going  im¬ 
mediately  to  conquer?  Unquestionably  the  moment; 

*  Matthew  26:56. 

*Mark  15:32. 

*  Matthew  15:14. 


82  TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS 

for  it  is  the  moment  that  is  passionate,  blind  and  ag¬ 
gressive.  “O  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  thou  that  killest 
the  prophets,  and  stonest  them  which  are  sent  unto 
thee.”i  Of  course  Jerusalem  killeth  her  prophets. 
For  what  is  a  prophet?  If  he  is  a  true  prophet,  is  he 
not  so  because  of  his  insight  into  life  in  general  and 
into  the  inevitable  consequences  of  our  momentary 
passionate  actions?  Then  because  of  this  very  insight 
he  can  never  qualify  as  a  popular  leader,  the  hero  of 
the  passing  moment.  Popularity  is  hardly  the  role 
of  a  true  prophet.  Therefore  Christ  says : 

Woe  unto  you  when  all  men  shall  speak  well  of  you,  for  so  did 
your  fathers  unto  the  false  prophets.^ 

The  greater  a  general  insight  is  the  more  it  is  at  vari¬ 
ance  with  the  vociferous  passions  of  the  moment. 
Now,  when  we  come  to  the  insight  that  Christ  taught, 
it  was  so  universal  that  it  was  not  even  understood  by 
the  moment.  Only  its  points  of  variance  were  felt 
and  resented  by  an  aroused  nation  on  the  eve  of  its  re¬ 
bellion  and  its  destruction.  And  Christ  was  crucified. 

The  kingdom  was  to  be  within  us.  The  kingdom 
was  a  matter  of  attitude  and  of  understanding.  But 
the  kingdom  was  also  after  all  like  a  mustard  seed, 
which  is  the  smallest  of  seeds,  but  which  grows  in 
time. 

Another  parable  put  he  forth  unto  them,  saying.  The  kingdom 
of  heaven  is  like  to  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  which  a  man  took, 
and  sowed  in  his  field:  Which  indeed  is  the  least  of  all  seeds: 
but  when  it  is  grown,  it  is  the  greatest  among  herbs,  and  becometh 

*  Matthew  23 1^7. 

*Luke  6:25. 


TOWARD  THE  UNDERSTANDING  OF  JESUS  83 

a  tree,  so  that  the  birds  of  the  air  come  and  lodge  in  the  branches 
thereof^ 

And  so  after  all  is  human  assimilation  of  all  knowl¬ 
edge,  and  all  insight.  It  is  a  matter  of  slow  growth. 


‘Matthew  13:31-32. 


a 


Date  Due 

A  2  -  ^ 

4 

iV!r  2 

Mv  Q 
♦f  y  o  *« 

N  a  ’39 

tACU'  ' 

.1  1  ’^l.; 

?.Q 

Mi  jif  ' 

f) 

>A  * 

-  «v^ 


